Your airlines' policy about the use of automation during flight?

[sabenaboy]

Our company's OM says that, generally, we should use the AP during cruise and as much as possible during abnormal situtions (failures). But, in climb or approach, when workload, weather conditions and crew fatigue permit, pilots
can fly manually in order to maintain their basic flying skills

And believe me, we make good use of this opportunity! :ok:

I'm really interested in what your company says about the use of automation. It would be nice it you could copy and paste your airline's policy about the use of automation in your answers.

[WhiskeyKilo]

I'm not currently a member of an airline yet, but I remember in an aviation magazine that a 'well-known' (I don't want to name names) european airline said 'Manual flying is only to be undertaken in the most extreme of circumstances' :ooh:

[Capn Bloggs]

My outfit:

"Practice with less than full automation is prohibited during normal line operations".

[john_tullamarine]

I recall back to the introduction of the 733 to replace the 732 in one airline .

After an initial, short, Flight Standards romance with the bells and whistles, the boss issued an edict along the lines of "Fly it how you prefer, but know how to do both - make it work well and don't embarrass me".

Appeared to work well.

Some pushed buttons to their hearts' content (but, consider, they had the manual skills well and truly established previously).

Others (including folk like me) preferred to push and pull on the yoke. Indeed, more than a few of us would hand fly entire sectors on the shorter routes, preferring to use the autopilot for important things .. like having lunch. I recall, on my check to the line, flying all bar the last sector by hand. The checkie, on the other hand, opted to fly a sector and preferred to spend his drawing pictures on the FMS - no problems, to each his own.

I suggest that, overall, there is a cost argument to emphasise the automatics. However, that cost argument is only part of the overall potential cost argument. Perhaps the optimum position is somewhere between the two extremes ?

Now, I have never flown Airbus so I cannot make any specific observations. However, I recall when the 320 was being introduced to Oz, the then Regulator's TP spent quite a bit of time on the aircraft and was utterly seduced by its magic. On the other hand, having flown with him on a number of occasions on test work, I have to observe that his stick and rudder skills were somewhere between very excellent and exceedingly excellent .. he was not the sort of chap to let his guard down with button pressing to extremes.

[Denti]

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 em- phasis on manual departures/ approaches with and without the flight director. However these intentions should be briefed and only performed when good weather and low traffic conditions prevail.

Briefing consists usually of a simple "are you ok with it?" to make sure the other guy is in the loop and can cope with the slightly increased workload. What good weather conditions are and how to define low traffic conditions is left to the individual pilot.

[sabenaboy]

I suggest that, overall, there is a cost argument to emphasise the automatics.

I have read this argument also in another thread.
Frankly I would be amazed if flying automatically all the time would turn out to be cheaper! I don't expect there to be any significant difference in the costs, but if asked, I would expect it to be the other way around.

Handflying doesn't stop us from flying FMGS calculated optimum speeds or taking advantage of calculated optimum descent point to respect some alt constraint further down the approach.

On the contrary, I believe that the fact that we are very often flying (shorter) visual approaches, saves the company a lot of money!

[aeromech3]

Try dispatching an airliner with A/P inop (if within the MEL)and see the reactions; for the punters down the back, not a comfortable experience and I am talking hand flying during cruise stages as well!!

[sabenaboy]

Try dispatching an airliner with A/P inop (if within the MEL)and see the reactions; for the punters down the back, not a comfortable experience and I am talking hand flying during cruise stages as well!!

Well, I couldn't take our 320's in RVSM airspace without A/P, but if the ship was perfectly fine apart from the A/P, and no other adverse conditions were expected, I wouldn't mind taking it on a short hop (let's say, < 1,5 hrs) below RVSM back to home base for repairs.

And the people in the back, you ask? They wouldn't complain! They wouldn't even notice!

I would refuse to take it on a long flight without A/P and on any flight leaving base, but that would be because I would be worried about my comfort, not the passengers'! :ok:

[DuneMentat]

From our ops manual:

2.1.22 Use of Automation
While pilots should make full use of the highest level of automation available to reduce workload, this must be balanced with the need to maintain manual handling proficiency. At all times the level of automation being used must be appropriate to the task.

At any stage where the aircraft response is not appropriate or adequate, the
automation must be disconnected with the subsequent reversion to manual flight.

When conditions and workload allow, pilots may elect to hand fly. This must be briefed as part of the departure or arrival briefing and remains at the discretion of the Commander.

[sabenaboy]

@DuneMentat

So how is that being applied in day to day operations in your company?

Do you regularly handfly raw data app's? Or is that an exception, rather then something you regularly do?

[FlightPathOBN]

Ask any SW pilot...the motto "fly it like a 200" is not only a mantra, its a necessity....:}

[A37575]

Actual scenario in a 737 NG. Visual approach to Sydney at 30 degree angle to ILS track. 17 miles from touch down and closing the localiser. The F/O as PF asks captain for permission to disengage AP for hand flying practice because of up-coming simulator instrument rating. Captain says no problem go ahead. F/O surprised, says gee thanks - most other captains don't allow me to hand fly.

But she does not disengage the AP. Captain reminds her. F/O says I won't disengage AP until it has completed localiser intercept in case I overshoot the centre-line. Eventually the aircraft is established on ILS and F/O switches off the AP. Captain says aren't you going to turn off the flight director to practice your raw data hand flown visual approach? No says the F/O, I will need the FD on in case of a go-around....

It is this sort of timorous attitude by some pilots to what are basic flying skills is the direct result of blind adherence to automatics and nothing but automatics. Blame the company simulator training environment where 90 percent of flying is on automatic pilot and associated button pushing.

Is it perhaps because the powers that be in the top echelon of training departments, cannot be bothered to read accident reports where loss of control because of poor instrument flying skills has been the problem? Certainly there has been no shortage of relevant accidents in the past few years. The increasing accent on superfluous politically correct SOP minutae seems to blind the trainers to the pressing need for pure flying skills.

One wonders why companies continue to encourage this lemming type attraction to automatics when Blind Freddie himself can see it leads to lack of self confidence in manual instrument flying skills?

As the ever increasing trend to hiring first time cadets into the second in command position on jet transports becomes the norm, loss of control accidents will also become the norm and inevitably due to lack of pure flying ability.

[sabenaboy]

A3757 said:
As the ever increasing trend to hiring first time cadets into the second in command position on jet transports becomes the norm, loss of control accidents will also become the norm and inevitably due to lack of pure flying ability.

I don't think the low time cadets are the problem, but more likely the training department. My company also hires the low time cadets fresh out of flight academy. Most of them do a great job at handflying, once they're released on line.
Here's what I wrote about it in an other post (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/452975-flying-skills-2.html#post6484497).

In my company it's done like this: Starting in the type-rating sim sessions the F/O's in training are learned to fly the Airbus manually (A/P, F/D & A/THR off) on many occasions whenever the exercise permits it. (And, for training, having one engine out is NOT a good reason to keep the A/P on. := ) Then, during base training they'll fly a few touch and go's, again without the automatics. Later on, during the initial line training, they will be asked to fly manual raw data approaches, whenever the conditions permit it. Believe me, once they're fully released on line they'll handfly the A320 pretty well, or ... they won't be released on line. :=

Unlike many others my company encourages pilots to keep their handflying skills up to date. Most of the time, I don't have to suggest my F/O's to turn the automatics off. they will have asked me before if they can. More often it happens, especially with the newly released kids, that I have to suggest them that it would be wise to fly with the automatics on when the metar warns us about low clouds and moderate visibility or when flying into a busy airport we are not familiar with! :p It's not they are not smart enough to know that, it's just that they were so used to raw date flying during their training, that using the automatics for approach has become the exception, rather then the rule. :p

I'll admit that sometimes those new F/O's are not so great in using the automatics. For instance, the first time they have to intercept a G/S from above with the A/P, they will often have a problem. Not amazing, they've trained it once in the sim and then they were expecting it! So confronted to this situation these guys (and girls) will disconnect the A/P when it captures the initial approach alt before the G/S iso using the Airbus procedure for this. (dialling the altitude up and using V/S to get to the G/S.) Oh well, manually intercepting the slope and then re-engaging the A/P gets the job done just as well and it gives me something to talk about during a friendly post-flight debrief. :ok:

There is really no excuse for Airlines who forbid their pilots to keep their raw data handflying skills up to date.

[d105]

Company policy is maximum use of AFDS with FD. Stick to LNAV / VNAV.

Company manual does not forbid handflying, but that is seen more as the lawyers covering the company in case something goes wrong with the automatics and it turns out people can't fly a damn kite anymore.

My personal policy is during summer usually raw data takeoff and approach/landing unless weather or other limiting factors require my attention to be on other things than just purely flying.

During winter usually automatics on until intercept on final, then manual flying. It seems a bit silly to me to be following radar vectors manually while there's nothing outside to look at but clouds, clouds and more clouds.

[Denti]

AS373575, as Sabenaboy said, the low timers are not a problem. We do take on our own MPL students and low timers from outside the company as well. The posted excerpt of the OM applies to them as well. And during simulator events we have to do raw data handling skill training as well, lately basic IFR flying skills again, but over a 3 year period that will change around a bit.

It is not about the hours the pilots have you hire, it is about the training they receive and the flight ops culture on the line.

Your example might point at bad system knowledge as well, after all in the case of a G/A you have the FD auto-pop up anyway, no need to have them switched on for that.

[despegue]

Hey Sabenaboy,

Great to hear that times haven't changed since our Sabena times!:ok:

I mostly fly raw-data u to cruise-level unless wx or traffic is an issue. Most guys here are ok with it, with the occasional FO who complains about workload:rolleyes: (get another job then if you can't handle it, you would never have passed a Sabena check) or is lecturing me about how mr. Boeing designed the aircraft to be flown through the autopilot (biggest bull$hit I've ever heard:ugh:)...

Proficient rudder-stick pilots are more economic than automation operators. Fact.

Any airline that prohibits ther pilots to FLY, should be put on the blacklist as they are more dangerous than most which are already on it.

[GlueBall]

Try dispatching an airliner with A/P inop (if within the MEL)and see the reactions
:ooh: I've never heard of all three [3] A/P being inop on the B747. . .

[Slasher]

Back in the trusty 732 and 734 I'd sometimes fly a short trip
completely raw data and just load the box with dep and dest
airports. It was fun, even with the awestruck kids wondering
how the hell its possible to fly without AP FD LNAV VNAV and
AT engagements.

But with the scarebus 320 suck-squirt I get no satisfaction at
all from hand-flying the damn thing, except for maybe TO to
TOC and the odd raw data VOR or ILS, starting with taking
out all the gizmos below 10,000. The flight controls are in a
computer-driven form of CWS anyway so what's the point? :hmm:

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Slasher:
But with the scarebus 320 suck-squirt I get no satisfaction at all from hand-flying the damn thing, except for maybe TO to TOC and the odd raw data VOR or ILS, starting with taking out all the gizmos below 10,000. The flight controls are in a computer-driven form of CWS anyway so what's the point?

If you are looking for seat-of-the-pants flying, with the need to trim manually, you’re on the wrong aeroplane, Slasher! :ugh:

And if we really want to relive our youthful experiences of flying big aeroplanes with stick-to-surface controls (no intermediate feel-units, no PFCUs, no servo-tabs, nor even any balance tabs), we’ll have to try and persuade one of those Canadian or third-world operators to trust us flying one of their precious remaining C-46s or C-47s.

You know very well that the essence of flying any jet is the relationship between pitch, bank, IAS, FPA, and thrust: and its variation at different altitudes and weights. (On all EFIS Airbuses since the A310 (1983), you can obtain FPA from the raw “bird” and also get a good idea of the AoA.)

There is a strong argument, however, for using the automatics in busy terminal areas. What worried me most in my many years on the A320 was the majority culture of delaying AP disconnect on a visual ILS approach until about 300ft, and then disconnecting it for a manual landing − retaining A/THR throughout. Once the landing checks are done, there is little for the PNF to do except monitor the flight-path and keep a lookout, so for the PF to minimise his/her workload in good weather is no longer necessary − unless fatigued.

Chris

[Al Murdoch]

I love flying raw data and do so whenever possible. But flying around busy terminal areas like London without the gifts that Boeing gave us is just asking for trouble, unless you really, really have to.
The key to maintaining your skills by flying without using the gadgets, is knowing when it is appropriate to do so. Sometimes it is useful to remember there are fare paying passengers in the back.

[Old Smokey]

A very nice post from Al Murdoch, which, to me, summarises the essenence of this whole discussion. Al's attitude is exactly in line with my own. I too, enjoy and take every opportunity to practice hand flying when appropriate, but in very busy airspace or marginal weather firmly believe that the aicraft must be operated by the safest and most accurate means possible, and that, on most (but not all) occasions implies the use of MODERN automatics.

John_Tullamaine, in one of the posts here, has stated that attitude and capability is very much a 'pilot era' thing. (John's backround and mine are very similar). For those of us from the era where hand flying was the safest and most accurate means possible, we have no discomfort in a modern highly automated aircaft in operating either way, the old or the new. It is no fault of the younger pilot entering the industry on a highly automated type to place a heavier reliance on the automatics.

I have always believed that an aircraft should be flown as the manufacturer intended.

When I learned to fly on the Tiger Moth, I flew it 'by the seat of my pants', that's what De Havilland intended, and that's what I did.

When I flew the DC3, I flew it by hand with the rather rudimentry insrumentation available, using the very primitive Auto-Pilot (not much more than a wing leveller) for a bit of relief during cruise. That's what Douglas intended, and that's what I did.

When I flew the F27 and Viscount, with a much improved (Sperry) Auto-Pilot, automation had only increased to improved en-route capability (Airspeed and Altitude Hold.....wow!). Terminal area flying and approaches were very much a hand-flown thing. That's what Fokker and Vickers intended, so that's what I did.

Jump a generation to the DC9 and B727. Very much improved Auto-Pilot (singular) and Flight Directors enabled much more accurate Automatic and Manual flight, but with zero redundancy, one had to be EQUALLY proficient with Automatic and hand flown flight. That's what Douglas (sniff!:() and Boeing intended, so that's what I did.

Jump over the A300 (my first Auto-land aircraft) to the current era where I fly the B777. Boeing incorporated very accurate and reliable automation with an incredible capacity for redundancy (7 sources of electrical power, 8 IRS units, 2 GPS units, 3 Flight Director backups, and a wide degree of PFD redundancy). How did Boeing intend that the aircraft be primarily flown? - By optimum use of automation, that's how, and that's what I do.:ok: The degree of redundancy is the deciding factor. Doing a 1 engine, TAC off, Raw Data ILS is a lot of fun, and good for confidence, but is such training necessary? ..... Absolutely NOT! (Excluding the TAC off because it has no back-up).

So, apart from self satisfaction, why do I still take every chance to hand fly? It's NOT because of possible Automatics failure, considering the mind-boggling redundancy, the chances of being 'down' to raw data are trillions to one against such a possibility. It's because there are still several manoeuvres which still call for the pilot to fly - The Visual Approach, and the Non Precision Approach (NPA). From the Base turn onwards (for the Visual Approach) and from the MDA onwards (for the NPA) manual flight (ideally with the Flight Directors OFF) is still essential!:ok: Add to this list (1) GPWS escape, (2) Wind Shear escape, (3) TCAS avoidance, and (4) Ground Equipment (such as ILS) malfunction, all SERIOUS situations, none can be handled by the Automatics in current generation aircraft, so Pilot Proficiency in hand flying remains essential, even if the Automatics remain fully functional.

So, the bottom line is, fly the aircraft as the manufacturer intended in normal operations, tempered with a good respect for the level of redundancy, and in the full realisation that there remains many areas (as described) which cannot be handled by a fully serviceable Automatic system. The pilot's proficiency in manual flight is the LAST line of defense.

When I go to my paid work, I make full use of the B777 automatics, particularly in inclement weather and crowded skies, but avail myself of every chance to 'get in' some hand flying. When I still fly the Tiger Moth on my time off, I fly it by the seat of my pants. That's what Boeing and De Havilland intended!:ok:

Regards,

Old Smokey

[sabenaboy]

Old Smokey said: When I go to my paid work, I make full use of the B777 automatics, particularly in inclement weather and crowded skies, but avail myself of every chance to 'get in' some hand flying

That sounds fine to me! Am I correct in assuming that 'some hand flying' includes switching A/THR and F/D's off?

So what exactly does your company's OM say about the use of automation?

[A37575]

The pilot's proficiency in manual flight is the LAST line of defense.


In recent years, Loss of Control has superseded CFIT as being the largest cause of aircraft accidents. That being the case, the LAST line of defence has more holes in it than Reasons Swiss Cheese theory...

Being selective I know, but the whole argument for automatics skills versus pure flying skills hit home when the CVR captured the voice of the captain of the doomed Egypt Air Boeing 737 still screaming "engage the autopilot...engage the autopilot" ....silence - end of recording. :eek:

[sabenaboy]

the doomed Egypt Air Boeing 737

I suppose you mean the FLASH Airlines 737 which crashed after TO in Sharm El Sheik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Airlines_Flight_604)...

[Old Smokey]

Sabenaboy,

To answer your 2 questions -

(1) 'some hand flying' includes switching A/THR and F/D's off, Yes, including all combinations of 'complete' raw data, and 1 of the 2 afore-mentioned OFF, and

(2) So what exactly does your company's OM say about the use of automation?, Use it fully and appropriately. Pilots are free to practice their hand flying / raw data skills in appropriate conditions, providing that optimum safety is not compromised and the PNF's work load is not unreasonably increased. (That's a summary of a quite lengthy discourse).

PLUS, Pilots should have no hesitation in reverting to Manual Flight should the occasion call for it (Again, a short summary).

Added as a Post Script - Quite a number of Company OM procedures call for Manual Flight with FD off, and Manual over-ride of the Auto Thrust (mainly those items addressed in my original post).

Regards,

Old Smokey

[Microburst2002]

Nothing written in any of the airlines I have flown with.

In those where there were "Sabena boys" I did enjoy a lot of hand flying and that is one of the reasons I consider those captains probably the best I've flown with. And they were all from a good cadet program, btw.

In the others, very seldom I fly with a "brave" captain who encourages hand flying, and very frequently with "not so brave" ones who directly deny that "right" to me.

In one of them, their motto (non written) is "do not degrade the airplane capabilities".

a last thought. The Airbus FBW is not a CWS. The only real difference is that you don't have to trim and you maintain bank angles very easily. Otherwise, you have to set a pitch and thrust, and use the brain, like in a cessna.

[Prince Niccolo M]

Cap'n Bloggs,

Ahhh, to have your automation policy driven by the world's most ambitious navigator and those too scared to speak up.....:O :O :O

[A37575]

I suppose you mean the FLASH Airlines 737 which crashed after TO in Sharm El Sheik...

Sabena boy. Thanks for the correction - my error.

[parabellum]

In todays modern aircraft it is important to fully understand the capability of the automatic systems. One of the biggest sins I have seen is a captain disconnecting auto pilot and throttle and announcing he will hand-fly when an emergency occurs!!! That may have been OK in the days of the flight engineer but the FE was got rid of on the basis of system redundancy and high levels of automation, so that automation must be used when appropriate. When the captain* disconnects and says he'll hand fly he is overloading the FO, who has to monitor and react as requested to the handling pilot as well as handle the emergency. The captain has chosen to overload himself by both hand flying and trying to monitor the emergency drills. Sadly there are several examples of a failure to properly monitor due to work overload when the use of automatics would have freed up a lot of capacity to properly analyse and monitor abnormal situations.

Regarding culpability, the manual will always be written in such a way that if an emergency occurs and proper use of the automatic systems was not utilised then the pilot will be to blame, on the other hand if use of automatics was not the best option then the pilot will be to blame! Sod's law, that is the Managerial CYA mode in full operation!


The recent A380 incident in Singapore shows that additional eyes and brains on the FD can reduce the workload, (five on the flight deck), if they know what they are doing.

*assuming captain retains or takes over PF duties.

[FerrypilotDK]

Try dispatching an airliner with A/P inop (if within the MEL)and see the reactions; for the punters down the back, not a comfortable experience and I am talking hand flying during cruise stages as well!!


I have seen guys come from the airlines who simply would refuse, as they know they cannot fly(!) A generalisation, but when you see that some of the "outfits" referred to here nearly forbid flying except in extreme circumstances....the story tells itself! Then there are NDB approaches and circle to land....runways that are both narrow and relatively short.....all great for variation and skill. Our company (when I had a tedious commuter gig) had no autopilots installed, so every flight was hand-flown and some of the legs were 3 hours......

Call me next time then, no complaints!

:cool:

[FlightPathOBN]

Every single system is designed to reduce the workload and the mundane... automation is to help the pilot fly the aircraft...

Any reasonable person would understand the need to provide oversight of the automation, understand the mechanics of the solution, and disco when applicable.

The recent A380 incident in Singapore shows that additional eyes and brains on the FD can reduce the workload, (five on the flight deck), if they know what they are doing.

Really...the ONLY reason...(while the press may have had some fun with that, I am sure that no one has an expectation that 5 on the flight deck was the reason for the outcome)

You only need two to know what they are doing, and one of those to be able to follow commands.

[parabellum]

...(while the press may have had some fun with that, I am sure that no one has an expectation that 5 on the flight deck was the reason for the outcome)




Nor did I suggest it was, the bulk of my post was about the proper use of automation to minimise workload and avoid overload. Extra eyes and brains can be useful, if they are available, but with proper use of the automation the maximum attention can be paid to the abnormality/emergency.

[Denti]

parabellum, nobody suggests otherwise. You always have to be proficient in autoflight as well. However, many abnormals degrade or shut off autoflight functions, and especially in those cases with exceptional high workload manual flight only works well if the pilots are proficient in manual flight. To be proficient in manual flight you need to keep your training up, what is better than to simply do it on the line?

Of course a professional pilot always should be proficient both in manual flight and autoflight usage. However there are some airlines that discourage the crews to use manual flight, and i guess this thread is about this point. Twice a year in the simulator for a couple minutes is simply not enough training.

And of course any additional pilot on the flightdeck helps in an non-normal situation.

[A37575]

Twice a year in the simulator for a couple minutes is simply not enough training.

Last year, a Boeing Company check pilot talked to pilots of a major Hong Kong based airline. In his travels, he noted that some airline pilots tended to avoid the opportunity to practice hand flying skills until the very last minute before a simulator session. This was a waste of time - he said - because manual flying skills had to be maintained throughout the year and that a hand flown ILS in good weather after months on autopilots did nothing for basic flying skills.

[misd-agin]

Use of automation to the extent necessary is the basic policy.

If guys turn the a/p on shortly after takeoff (decent weather)I'm worried about their skills. My concern is frequently correct.

If the guys don't turn the a/p off until the a/c is stabilized, gear down, final flaps, I'm worried about their skills. Again, my concern is frequently correct.

If the guys hand fly in bad weather I'm thinking "what are you trying to prove?" Use the automation to the extent necessary!

[BGQ]

Automation Philosophy
Introduction
Automation is the replacement of the human function, either manipulative or
cognitive, with a machine function. The sole purpose of automation is to aid flight crew in doing their job.

Flight crew are the most complex, capable and flexible components of the air
transport system, and are best suited to determine the optimal use of resources in any given situation. They must be proficient in operating their aircraft in all levels of automation, and must have the skills needed to move from one level of automation to another.

Automation must be used at the level most appropriate to enhance the priorities of safety, passenger comfort, public relations, schedule and economy.

Use of Automation
The following guidelines will assist flight crew in determining and using the
appropriate level of automation:
• Programming actions and changes to automation status should be
verbalised and acknowledged.
• Flight crew should consider that all automated systems are dumb, dutiful,
and inflexible. Pilots must continually evaluate the automatics and what
they are doing. Be prepared to make changes.
• Timely and efficient use of the appropriate level of automation will allow
other matters requiring attention to be dealt with more effectively.
• Pilots should ensure that all operating crew members are aware of the
current status of automated systems as well as any changes made to their
use.
• Should a pilot feel uncomfortable with the level or use of automation,
either more information is necessary or something is wrong. The pilot in
this situation shall ask for additional information or propose an alternative
plan.
• Flight crew should plan ahead, using the low-workload periods of flight
effectively, and avoid programming during departures and arrivals.
• The programming of autoflight systems during high workload periods
may compromise the crew’s ability to maintain situational awareness
and/or flight path control. In these circumstances, the crew should be
prepared to use a more basic mode of automation.

• Automation occasionally fails. Periodically hand-fly the aircraft to
maintain basic flying skills.

• Use of automated systems can possibly create conflict. Communication
skills assume even greater importance under automation, where
traditional forms of feedback are reduced.
• Remember, when using any level of automation, pilots always have the
capability to:
• ask the other operating crew for help
• revert to a lower level
• disengage
• reactivate.

[Sciolistes]

That sounds fine to me! Am I correct in assuming that 'some hand flying' includes switching A/THR and F/D's off?
Don't knock hand flying with the FDs on. It is a great opportunity to learn to improve one's SA by making flightpath decisions thinking independantly but with the support of the AFS whilst seeing also what the AFS would preferr you to.

I see a fair few who try to recisely follow FD commands when the speed trend is opposite to what is desired, making unnecessary pitch addjustments that will obviously need corrections in sec or two, trying to follow tortuous LNAV intercepts and the like.

[Microburst2002]

Depending on the type and sophistication of the FD, sometimes it is best flown when you make the bars come to you, instead of you going to the bars.

In more sophisticated ones, following the bar "blindly" is usually good enough in most circumstances.

Practice flying with FDs ON is advisable. You may one day lose AP but have FD available, along with other failures (say dual hydraulic or whatever) and if you never practice that, you won't do it as well as you could.

As for low experienced pilots, it is a good practice, to learn how to correctly fly the FD, smoothly and without rushing (not confusing a bar suddenly going fully right with a "quickly bank right" command, for instance).

If you want them to learn to look behing the bars, though, they will have to practice no FD hand flying.

[Tee Emm]

Don't knock hand flying with the FDs on.

Presumably the purpose of practicing hand flying on instruments is to hone one's scan technique. Scanning involves not only the flight instruments but also navigation needles such as ADF, ILS and VOR as well as distance information.
That is exactly why single pilot IFR demands excellent instrument flying scanning skills - especially as some aircraft do not have autopilots.

On the other hand, if most of this information is fed into a flight director system, the pilots concentration centres on the flight director needles including the tiny square that forms the centre-piece of these two needles. After all, isn't the prime purpose of flight directors to make scanning easier because the one instrument will guide the pilot very accurately providing it is programmed correctly. With autothrottles thrown in as well, scanning of engine instruments becomes a secondary task to the prime task of flight director gazing.

All that being so, it is pointless to leave the flight director on if the pilot wishes to hone his scanning skills, since the whole point of the FD is to reduce scanning workload to the one instrument in the first place.

[night mission]

Pilots will be proficient in operating their aircraft in all levels of automation. However, the level of automation used at any specific time should be the most appropriate to reduce pilot workload during critical phases of flight, increase situational awareness, enhance safety, maintain proficiency in manual manipulation of the flight controls, maintain schedule and maximize economy. Pilots should use the available automation at the level most appropriate to achieve these objectives. In the human- machine interface, the pilot is still in charge.

My company has moved over the last couple of years from an aggressive, "use the highest level of automation" to the above statement. In my experience, hand flying, especially during departures, puts a heavy load on the PNF/PM. Everyone's SA is also reduced during hand flying. Flight during approach without flight directors, and more so A/T, really forces the PF to "stay inside" much more than otherwise. That said there is no other way to maintain hand flying skills unless you do so. :ok:


The following guidelines apply to the use of automation: • Auto flight system:
- Disengage any auto flight system which is not operating as expected.
- If autopilot engaged, PF should make all auto flight inputs.
- If autopilot disengaged, PM should make all auto flight inputs.
• Brief special automation duties and responsibilities.
• Do not allow automation tasks to interfere with outside vigilance.....

[Sciolistes]

Tee Em,

Please don't think that hand flying with FDs on should be done to the exclusion of with the FDs off. I my points are in addition to yours, I am simply saying that it isn't pointless and such practice should not be considered as such as per my afore mentioned specific points.

night mission,
In my experience, hand flying, especially during departures, puts a heavy load on the PNF/PM. Everyone's SA is also reduced during hand flying. Flight during approach without flight directors, and more so A/T, really forces the PF to "stay inside" much more than otherwise. ]
I don't wish to appear argumentative. We hand fly often and I can't say that I have noticed significant workload increases or loss of SA as a result. The PM role doesn't change except for twiddling more knobs and switches and the PM needs to remain just as aware with automation on or off.

[night mission]

May be more a function of the particular mission. In my fleet we fly mainly long haul, with departures often in the early AM from airports we have infrequent experience with. I would agree, with more landings per month we would all be better able to fly hands on with less energy devoted to the art of flying and more directed to the external issues prevalent at complex, demanding airports/departure environments.

[john_tullamarine]

While acknowledging the importance of horses for courses, hand flying is a bit like Goren's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Goren) view in respect of bridge play when he observed "the more I practise, the better I get" ...

[Tee Emm]

While acknowledging the importance of horses for courses, hand flying is a bit like Goren's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Goren) view in respect of bridge play when he observed "the more I practise, the better I get" ...

Game - Set - Match, to JT :ok:

[paull]

I understand the need to stay competent with manual flying but I have a fear that the lawyers might one day restrict the choice. You are handflying on Flight XXX and an accident results. The victim's lawyers have access to a report saying that the safest thing to do is have A/P engaged. Saying that handflying on Flight XXX is for the benefit of all other subsequent flights might not be easy to argue and unless your airline can prove the long-term benefit of having a minimum of handflying practice then do they leave themselves open to higher risk/legal claims?

[parabellum]

Pedant Mode 'ON'

"the more I practise, the better I get" ...

Or, in response to people who told him how lucky he was to keep winning, he replied, "Yes, the more I practice the luckier I get"?

Pedant Mode 'OFF'

We are really talking about the extreme ends of the same piece of string. At one end we have the brand new pilot who has done the absolute minimum of hand flying required for a licence and gone straight to an electric jet and is totally unaccustomed to hand flying it, whilst at the other end of the string we have the old hand who simply doesn't like all this "new fangled electronic stuff" because they don't properly understand it and want to resort to their basics when trouble occurs, dumping a whole load of help in the process.

Those are the extremes, now to find the happy medium somewhere towards the middle!

(Personally I would legislate that every new pilot fresh from school with a new licence does a minimum of 1500 hours in GA before even touching a multi crew aircraft! I can guess how popular that would be!).

[d105]

And more importantly:

It's just plain good fun :)

[john_tullamarine]

the more I practice the luckier I get

OK, so I paraphrased it a tad for the purposes of the thread ... a bloke can't get away with anything here ... sheesh.

When we next catch up for an ale, I shall toast your alertness ..

Those are the extremes, now to find the happy medium somewhere towards the middle!

.. and you are, of course, absolutely correct. Horses for courses is the name of the game.

The concern must be for those who either can only do one or the other or, irrationally, incline in like manner.

[Sciolistes]

At one end we have the brand new pilot who has done the absolute minimum of hand flying required for a licence and gone straight to an electric jet and is totally unaccustomed to hand flying it
Maybe, but actually a new pilot straight onto a jet has a disproportionately large amount of hand flying experience compared to an experienced jetter. I can't speak for everyone but I was pretty comfortable with hand flying the 737 before and after my base training, so was everybody in my group from what I could tell.

[IFly86N]

So, apart from self satisfaction, why do I still take every chance to hand fly? It's NOT because of possible Automatics failure, considering the mind-boggling redundancy,the chances of being 'down' to raw data are trillions to one against such a possibility. It's because there are still several manoeuvres which still call for the pilot to fly - The Visual Approach, and the Non Precision Approach (NPA). From the Base turn onwards (for the Visual Approach) and from the MDA onwards (for the NPA) manual flight (ideally with the Flight Directors OFF) is still essential!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif ...A most excellent statement, Sir! It is most certainly possible for the automation to fail. To wit, last year, on approach into KBWI the MCP (on our B763ER) decided to go on strike. Everything failed: A/T, A/P, FDs, etc.

Guess what? I went immediately back to my Piper/Cessna/B727/B737 days and flew that b*tch, well, like a big ol' Cessna.

At my company, "Click, Click" (at any point from TOD to landing) is not discouraged.

God Bless Mr. Boeing and the wonderful B727! (I'm not biased, am I?)

[bubbers44]

Yes, the 727 was a wonderful airplane and when we got rid of them went to the 757/767. So many times I resorted to 727 type flying with two clicks including my initial checkout when the check airman totally screwed up the automation so disconnected and turned on course in a climbing right turn when he had us in a descending left turn. He eventually caught up so could reingage the autopilot.

I don't ever want to fly with a pilot put in an automatic airplane with no hand flying airplane experience. Sometimes those unexpected short turn ons because of wx on final are challenging for someone that knows how to hand fly.

[IFly86N]

Sometimes those unexpected short turn ons because of wx on final are challenging for someone that knows how to hand fly. Or 250 (kts) to the Marker. A skill long lost these days.

You (and all other B727 drivers) know what I mean.

[Centaurus]

In my experience, hand flying, especially during departures, puts a heavy load on the PNF/PM. Everyone's SA is also reduced during hand flying.

An opposite point of view written by a Pprune contributor during another thread on automation was "automation robs situational awareness through absence of physical/sensory cues of flying the machine and as a result atrophies flying and thinking skills.

[parabellum]

As another poster has already said, there is a time and a place for everything and arrivals and departures in busy, crowded airspace with frequency changes galore and a very busy ATC environment is no time to be practicing, that is how heights are bust and ATC calls are missed.

That is not an opposite point of view to Night Mission's post, is it Centaurus? More a statement of fact in a very general way and not attributable exclusively to the high workload elements of a flight.

Once again, there is a time and a place...

[bubbers44]

Remember the days when hand fying an airplane wasn't classified by some as practicing? I guess I spent my first 15,000 hrs practicing then. Sad.

[parabellum]

You didn't have a choice bubbers, so of course, it wasn't practicing, it was all you had.

[pi3lot_1982]

In regard to that though I do try and practise on my flight sim at home (fs2004) with some of the pmdg airliner addons like the 737,747 and md11 during the times when I might not have been able to hand fly as much as I liked ie weather etc. It is ok for doing procedures with autopilot on in but very very twitchy and sensitive in manual, an eager captain said that if you can fly in fs04 with it being so sensitive you can fly anything, does anyone have any ideas on a flight sim that doesn't cost the earth where you can practise hand flying with something that some what feels like the real thing?

Many thanks

[d105]

I find the argumentation for handflying only when "in good weather conditions" or at "the appropriate, calm airport" strange.

Shouldn't we all not just be able to do it everywhere all the time, period?

Have you ever heard of a fighter pilot saying something like "Well, I will only pull up to 5G ever, because 9G is just way too tough!" or a a surgeon claiming he will only operate if no complications arise.

Isn't it just simply part of our job description to be able to do this stuff without hesitation and in full competence?

My point is that the argument of putting extra workload on the other pilot is void in my opinion. If the other pilot can't handle the extra workload for a couple of minutes, he shouldn't be sitting there at all.

I'll probably get a lot of flack for this post. But this is my view on the matter.

[poina]

I've flown with a multitude of FO's/Capt's who want to handfly but prefer to wait until autoflight has captured the LOC/GS, AT has set the power in speed mode, and are inside the outer marker.
Bottom line, people are scared of handflying, scared of making mistakes, scared of losing face. However, it takes many mistakes to improve.
As one has previously stated, best to look beyond the FD to see what raw data pitch attitude autoflight is commanding. It's not brain surgery to know approx. pitch att/ power setting for all intermediate slat/flap/gear positions.
Hand flying without FD/AT is ONE of the best ways to maintain high levels of competence, done in appropriate circumstances depending on traffic etc. etc.
There's still plenty of time to read the paper, do the crossword, and maybe spend 10 minutes seeing what's up in the QRH.

[Sciolistes]

D105,
I find the argumentation for handflying only when "in good weather conditions" or at "the appropriate, calm airport" strange.

Shouldn't we all not just be able to do it everywhere all the time, period?

Piona
I've flown with a multitude of FO's/Capt's who want to handfly but prefer to wait until autoflight has captured the LOC/GS, AT has set the power in speed mode, and are inside the outer marker.

I completely agree. Somebody who finds hand flying uncomfortable in anything other than so called 'ideal' conditions probably is not prepared to takeover from the A/P at a moments notice. A rare example a while back on a VNAV VOR approach in IMC. The aircraft bizarrely started to climb at the FAF, recovery by changing the AP mode would possibly have left us too high to remain stable so I decided to disconnect and correct accordingly, flying the remainder of the approach manually.

Reducing the level of automation (V/S mode for example) would also be a valid response too, but a go-around probably the most likely result in my view due to then speed of response to AP inputs.

[Microburst2002]

I am an advocate of hand flying as often as possible, but in IMC it is better just to use at least the FD, just in case any abnormal situation happens to occur that day. Things probably will get worse than in a hand flown case in such a scenario.

[misd-agin]

Appropriate level of automation - that includes telling the other guy to turn on, or off, the a/p if they, or the a/p, isn't getting the job done. :ugh:

[parabellum]

The aircraft bizarrely started to climb at the FAF


Sure it wasn't just going for the missed approach altitude, that being the next 'hard' one in the box if you don't put anything in after the FAF?:confused:

(Just curious, it happened to me during my intro. to FMCs in a B737-300 in 1986, training sector, training capt. let it all continue as a demonstation of what can happen, sent back to read the books, emphasis on 'hard' altitudes etc.! - dumped VNav and used Fl Change with speed intervention thereafter.)

[d105]

Not to worry everyone! It seems that a pprune detective has already appeared on the scene.

For god's sake.

[parabellum]

Ah yes, the standard, quite useless, sniping one liner we have come to expect from d105. Go to bed old chap, sleep it off.

[Mrs-rodge-bless-her]

I only learned to fly properly when I was sent to Belgium and flew with ex-Sabena captains, in 8 months I learned how to go from autopilot monkey to being able to fly raw data down to minimums. I fly the 737-8 and every day now, and I feel my skills get better as I strap the aircraft to my back and fly it raw data. (most days) But, the problem lies, that in my opinion, modern commercial pilots are depending on automation too much. Time and time again, I have seen pilots in CAVOK conditions with calm wind keep the autopilot in until minimums, then disconnect and fly the aircraft (badly) down to the runway. Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?????:ugh:

I feel that the skills of pilots are degrading due to the amount of automation encompassed within the modern day aircraft. The airlines are also to blame, as recurrent training generally does not include basic instrument flying skills. Initial line training on the aircraft, we are told, engage the autopilot, nail the flight directors, and I feel this is wrong. I've seen experienced captains with thousands of hours, follow the FD's in the wrong direction to the left or right, and descending, when we should be climbing! Very dangerous.

My normal day at work starts during the briefing, when I ask the other guy or girl, do you mind if I hand fly the aircraft up. Usually this is met by hostility, why? The question begs, are pilots afraid to fly? :\
When it is not met by hostility I explain I will be doing it raw data, with my flight director off. Many people seem shocked and become anxious. But most will allow me to do it, when I explain that if there are any problems or non-normal situations I will engage the autopilot.
I fly the aircraft off the runway, with BOTH flight directors on, as this provides a safety net in case of engine failure. I want to practice my flying skills, but I would like to have guidance or help in an emergency situation.
At 400’ I switch my F/D off and tell the other pilot to keep theirs on. This allows me too quickly to re-engage the autopilot and F/D if we have any problem, allowing the MCP to be still used. Usually at this stage I will fly the aircraft past flight level 100 and put my flight director on and engage the auto pilot before flight level 245. As this is what it states in my operations manual.
During the cruise when I am briefing my approach and arrival I explain, that I will disconnect early again. I disconnect early depending on which airspace we are flying. If it is London TMA, I will leave it later if it is somewhere very quiet like Poland I will disconnect earlier.
Again on disconnecting I will switch off my flight director or both if the other pilot is happy. Raw data ILS or NPA is more difficult in my opinion than the standard departure. So I like to practice this often. I do this almost every day, and feel, that this is making me a better pilot.

Unfortunately everyday line pilots have in my opinion become complacent. The skills are lost due to a reliance on the autopilot and flight director system.
Most pilots I have flown with frown upon manual raw data departures and approaches. This is a mindset that has crept into modern aviation and it in my opinion will cause a human factor accident or incident when the auto pilot and flight director system fails!

As a pilot, ask yourself, would you be able to fly the aircraft raw data should the need arise?

So, I am now currently writing a guide for any other B738 operator on how to fly correctly, and build up to gaining your raw data skills back.

With many guys, it is not that they do not have the skills, but the fact that laziness and being afraid to fly (due to company) has crept in. The key to this is safety, choose your moments, don't be stupid for example flying raw data in a TS!

I am hoping my flight training department will be happy to receive it, but who knows! Gladly my airline allows "manual practice" but surely we are pilots and we should be allowed to fly?

[Centaurus]

I fly the aircraft off the runway, with BOTH flight directors on, as this provides a safety net in case of engine failure. I want to practice my flying skills, but I would like to have guidance or help in an emergency situation

I have always found that concentrating solely on the flight directors following an engine failure after take off increases the work load significantly since the intense scrutiny needed to keep the needles exactly centred leaves no time to be aware of what is happening outside of the immediate area of the instrument.

The slightest aircraft attitude may cause one or both of the two needles to change position and one is automatically driven to `follow` them blindly at the expense of other things around you.

In the simulator, I have seen many pilots lose the plot due to over controlling when they over-react to flight director information and chase the offending needle (s) in order get things squared away. One man's `chasing` is another man's `correcting. Everyone's a critic when this happens. ... and doesn't it piss you off when the instructor steadily intones "fly the bloody needles".

The technique this scribe favours with an engine failure after take off, is to immediately use the standby ADI as the primary attitude reference. Of course there will be howls of indignation from FD aficionado's. Yet there is also evidence that some pilots are seriously spooked by FD needles during coping with engine failures. The slightest yaw produces rapid needle movement and in the haste to get the needles squared away in quick time, pilots may over-control causing more fluctuation of the FD needles.

It then becomes a vicious circle rather like trying to control a dutch roll. Although some instructors exhort their students to "look through" the FD needles to see what the primary ADI is telling them, I find the FD needles often cover the pitch indications on the face of the ADI and again this causes loss of concentration on what should be a simple task of flying the appropriate pitch attitude for the circumstances.

If there is a knack to "looking through" FD needles to see what the primary ADI is displaying behind the needles, then this suggests that FD are over-rated and may cause more grief than they are supposed to prevent

The beauty of switching one's glance to the standby ADI for basic climb out attitude is that it is unencumbered by superfluous other information. In the simulator I have observed others who admit to shamelessly disregarding the `dancing needles` of the FD information in favour of the pure instrument flying ability needed to use the standby ADI.

Choosing to switch off the flight director if it is distracting you from the prime job of flying the aircraft accurately on one engine will generally arouse the ire of some simulator instructors. They forget that flight directors are an aid - not a `you will crash without them`, item.

Switching your scan directly to the standby ADI solves the problem because the instructor wouldn't have a clue where you are looking. To students who have difficulty and are spooked by the FD needles during engine failure after lift off, my advice is to use the standby ADI every time. In every case that I have seen (hundreds during type rating training in the simulator) it has worked and they have had no further problem with accuracy of climb out. The fascinating part is that after using the standby ADI as primary attitude instrument the FD needles are magically centred.

[despegue]

I am SO GLAD and conforted that our industry is not lost yet, and that common sense and airmanship still exists among Pprune members.

FD are there to give you guidance. (at least the cross-bars). They are a tendency indicator, indicating what George would do. George has no brain, only a chip.
You, the pilot have the brain and are the ultimate checker and decisionmaker. NEVER GEORGE. See through the F/D when using it.
Once people "get" this, they will start flying smoother. A remedy I often use with FO's who are "less than smooth" in their controls. Is to let them fly the aircraft by putting F/D's off and then telling them to control the aircraft with putting pressure on the yoke by only using the "pushing" hand. Smoothly and without yanking like a horny teenager:ok:
It almost always result in a confortable flight, happy passengers and crew and a happy aircraft:}

For the Engine failure: remember that on some variants of the Boeing, the FD is not to be followed in the original aftermath from a failure. Keep your track to the original RWY (so important!), keep your pitch for the required speed. Do not pump but be gentle, your plane has just lost half of her juice, she is upset...

regards,

Despegue "the Belgian".

[WallyWumpus]

Mrs-Rodge,

Sounds like you are an FR pilot not based in the UK.

One of the best things about this company is the raw data flying!!

Wally.

[sabenaboy]

First of all, I would like to thank Irishpilot1990 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/453212-your-airlines-policy-about-use-automation-during-flight.html#post6489143), Microburst2002 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/453212-your-airlines-policy-about-use-automation-during-flight-2.html#post6494881)and Mrs-rodge-bless-her (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/453212-your-airlines-policy-about-use-automation-during-flight-4.html#post6511897) for their comments about Sabena pilots. I'll take that as a compliment! :O

I'm glad to see that almost everybody seems to agree that it is necessary to stay proficient in handflying airliners with raw data!

A quote from paull (#47 (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/453212-your-airlines-policy-about-use-automation-during-flight-3.html#post6505428)): I understand the need to stay competent with manual flying but I have a fear that the lawyers might one day restrict the choice. You are handflying on Flight XXX and an accident results. The victim's lawyers have access to a report saying that the safest thing to do is have A/P engaged. Saying that handflying on Flight XXX is for the benefit of all other subsequent flights might not be easy to argue and unless your airline can prove the long-term benefit of having a minimum of handflying practice then do they leave themselves open to higher risk/legal claims? I would like to argue that there are quite a few accidents resulting from badly using/understanding/monitoring the automatics. The Turkish crash in AMS (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20090225-0) and the Air Inter crash in Strasbourg (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19920120-0) immediately come to mind. Those crashes would not have happened if a pilot would have been handflying.

I am convinced that pilots should use the automatics intelligently. That includes using the automatics when there is a good reason to use them and NOT to handfly the beast when there's a good reason not to! I remember when I was a 737-classic F/O in Sabena and flew with a very young captain who had just been promoted to the left seat. He was PF to a Scandinavian airport with snow and the cloud base and visibility reported very close to the minima with a 15 kts crosswind. He disconnected "everything" at 5000' and then handflew the 737 perfectly to the minima and landed perfectly. I still think he's a fool who was just trying to impress me. I can assure you that he didn't! Fortunately he was an exception at Sabena and almost all other captains were much smarter. Confronted with the same conditions now I would use the A320's auto-features to bring it on the ILS fully stabilised and then disconnect A/P and A/T to continue with the F/D on. Why not leave the A/T on and just disconnect the A/P at the minima you might ask?

Well, I believe that any pilot, after some practise, is more intelligent and better at managing thrust then the Airbus A/T system! This is what I wrote in an other post (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/414315-a320-how-save-landing-2.html#post5677745): All pilots in my company will agree that we, as pilots, can do a better job then the A320 autothrust system. It's my experience that if you fly the A320 by hand but with A/T engaged in stormy and gusty conditions, the A/T is a very foolish "speedchasing device". For instance: when you're a little low, but a little high on speed -due to shifting winds for instance- the A/T will reduce thrust too much and not anticipate fast enough to stop you from getting in a nose high, low speed condition when you pull the sidestick to recover from your low trajectory. It appears to me that that is what happened to you during your flare.

I also believe that it's best to disconnect the A/P a little before the minima, especially in gusty and windy conditions, just to have a little more time to get it "in your hand" again.

I am very much in favour of using either all automatics (A/P, A/T + F/D) ON OR everything OFF. I think you could actually train a chimpanzee to follow a flight director, so I do not like it very much when one of my F/o's keeps handflying the A320 with F/D on during climb until long after flap retraction. What's the point??? Any chimpanzee can do that! :rolleyes: The same during approach. What use can it have to fly a descent + final app with A/P off but F/D and A/T engaged? You don't have to think or keep situational awareness for that. :ugh: Just smoothly follow the F/D cross!

So this is my own personal policy: Take off is done in the "normal" Airbus way with F/D on. I usually engage the A/P when the flaps are up. (I leave the A/P to do the chimp's job) Once in a while I'll do a take off with the F/D's off. (as per the procedure in FCOM 4.05.30 P5) And yes, handling an engine failure with F/D off would not be a problem! (We have been taught to initially rotate up to 12,5 deg and fly through the F/D's anyway in such a case.)

Every time I do not feel too tired, traffic is not too busy and the weather is not too lousy or I can't come up with a good reason why I shouldn't, somewhere during the descent I will switch to handflying the ship.

I am 100 % convinced that, if common sense is used, this will not impair safety. On the contrary!!

So my advice to everybody is: use common sense, make sure you know how to handle the automation but also make sure you can handfly your A/C smoothly and accurately in any situation! You can only stay proficient by doing it regularly!

Sabenaboy

[gatbusdriver]

I believe the FD can be a hinderence during the V1 cut. You have to fly through them to nail your pitch attitude (10 degrees for my type).

We had a manual handling sim session a few years ago, during that time we did some FD off EFATO training. As a whole this was flown a lot more accurately as the FD was not there to distract, just rotate to 10 degrees, then at acceleration pitch down to 7.5 degrees, seems to work very well.

I am lucky that I work for a company where manual flying is encouraged, it still amazes me how so few people,when it is appropriate, take the opportuntity. I started this job because of a love of flying, and flying is just what I look to do (just wish I did it better!).

Nothing like doing the visual valley arrival into INN flying the aircraft like a big Cessna, it's why I signed up.

[sabenaboy]

@Gatbusdriver: I hope the "Current a/c Type" (330/320) in your profile is not up to date! :eek:

[sabenaboy]

Hi John,


Google helped me find the Cathay 330/340 FCTM (http://www.smartcockpit.com/data/pdfs/plane/airbus/A340/misc/A330-A340_Flight_Crew_Training_Manual.pdf). It says: At VR, rotate smoothly using a continuous, yet slightly slower pitch rate than with all engines operating, to an initial pitch attitude of 12.5°. The combination of high FLEX temperatures and low V speeds requires precise handling during the rotation and lift-off. The 12.5° pitch target will ensure the aircraft becomes airborne.
I have no experience in the A330, but I think that pitching up to 10° only in the A320 in case of EFATO, will not get you airborne under ALL weight/flex thrust combinations. Is your company's FCTM provided by Airbus or was it made in house?

In the mean time I have looked at some of Gatbusdriver's previous posts and found out that he's on some Boeing-type lately. :ok:

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Sabenaboy,

The FCTM continues to say:
The 12.5 ° pitch target will ensure the aircraft becomes airborne.
WHEN SAFELY AIRBORNE:
The SRS orders should then be followed which may demand a lower pitch attitude to acquire or maintain V2.
With practice, and especially on long runway lengths available, some crews use a slightly slower rotation rate and get airborne with an attitude closer to 10 degs pitch, at V2 and satisfy the SRS orders.

[sabenaboy]

WHEN SAFELY AIRBORNE:
The SRS orders should then be followed which may demand a lower pitch attitude to acquire or maintain V2.
Yep, precisely, first make sure you get airborne and THEN follow the srs-orders (smoothly).

I'm not sure pitching up a 77 Ton A320 to 10° with reduced flex thrust will get you airborne. I'd say: go for 12,5° initially and then follow the srs as per FCTM!

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Sabenaboy,
I'm not sure pitching up a 77 Ton A320 to 10° with reduced flex thrust will get you airborne.
If the SRS commands 10 degs pitch in order to maintain V2, then you will get airborne at that same pitch attitude.
The 12.5 degs is the datum to aim for to ensure you get airborne before the fence. If the runway is very long, what is the advantage of getting airborne with the speed below V2?

[OPEN DES]

bit of thread drift:
12.5 is no holy number. at the end of the day you have to satisfy the regulations by crossing the threshold at V2 and 35ft minimum by flying whatever pitch that requires.
12.5 is for TOGA at medium weights. Other combinations of Flex, Weight and Vspeed optimization will require an adapted pitch. 10 deg will get you airborne at typical weight and flex without scraping the tail off.

I am very much in favour of manual flying. And I encourage all my F/O's to hand-fly as much as they want to under not too busy conditions.
My basic conviction is that any linepilot should be ABLE to fly a raw-data approach with manual thrust down to minimums at the operating limitation (xwind) of the a/c.
Would it be wise to this actually? Big No!! But you have to be ready to do it one day when things quit and raw data is the only thing left! So what better opportunity than to practice rawdata flying when the weather is nice with all the systems working normally?? It is your professional obligation to maintain and/or improve your manual skills! (also it is more fun and gives you more job satisfaction) And you know what you'd do when you become overloaded? Just connect the automatics again!! Win-win situation, risk-free!

I had an F/O one day telling me he would like to do some manual flying. Then at 1000ft RA with the AP still in I asked him about the manual flying. So he replied that it would not be wise to take the AP out now, as the landing clearance was not received yet!! In case of G/A blablablabla Hahaha. It makes me laugh, but cry at the same time. I've also flown with F/O's who were hesitant to accept a visual approach approach in CAVOK, no terrain and opted for the full procedural ILS as they were not confident; not having done any visual approach since line-training!! Ridiculous! A visual approach is a normal procedure in the SOP and it saves a lot of fuel and time!!

I hate to bash one specific country. But most if not all of the problems are with pilots from a specific Island. Pilots from continental Europe tend to be much more hands-on and less worried about liability and risk mitigation and actually like to fly the a/c!!

O.D.

[sabenaboy]

Hi rudderrudderrat,

If don't feel the need to start an argument about a few degrees (or inches :E ) with you. So if 10° works for you, be my guest.

I know from more then 20 Pc's in the A320 that a smooth rotation to 12,5° works fine for me all the time, whatever the weight or flex. (I can't recall ever finding myself below V2 when airborne) I'm not sure that 10° pitch up will ever get me climbing away on one engine at MTOW at a 4000m rwy? So I'll stick to the exact procedure I can find in the FCTM.

I suggest we return to the topic.

Respectfully,
Sabenaboy

[Microburst2002]

How is it possible that we must carry out a number of autolands every six months (in actual CAT II, III or for practice only) to stay current in LVO and we don't have to carry out a number of raw data ILS to minima "to stay current in flying"?

Is it more difficult to autoland than to land?

If the answer is yes, then it should not be a problem (even from the point of view of liability) to hand fly an approach.

If the answer is no, then hand flying should be practiced in the same way as autolands in order to make sure that flight crews remain competent at hand flying an approach to minima.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi,

Aerosafety World July 2010 (http://www.merrowresidents.org/pprune/Manual Flying Skills.pdf) has an interesting article about manual flying skills.

[gatbusdriver]

Just to clarify

My current type is 757, and with both 2 and 300 series, different flap settings and improved climb, 10 degrees has been agreed as the best target pitch attitude.

Regards

GBD

(came off the bus for LHS)

[FlightPathOBN]

after enduring this thread, I now have a good idea what the pilots were doing on their laptops when they overshot MINN by 300nm....

posting HERE!

:D

[parabellum]

CATII & III approaches, when everything is working, are not difficult and only require a high level of monitoring, however, failures during the take-off roll, using the black and white Barber's Pole, can be interesting, as can the go around from a very low height. Not all companies are the same but, in my last employer, to maintain currency, there would be one no problems approach and landing and all the others would have failures of one sort or another fed in.

[FlightPathOBN]

para..

Concur..

A 'balked landing' assumes 50' above threshold go around....if one is practiced in these regards, CAT III is not a problem...

[Microburst2002]

Now you mention

What is easier? a multiple AP coupled balked landing or a hand flown balked landing?

See what i mean? Hand flying proficiency should be regularly checked, just the same as low visibility approaches.

SImulator training is one requirement, and you can use it to rehearse all kind of scenarios and faults. But another requirement is to carry out a number of autolands in real revenue fllights. Why do regulations not require a number of hand flown ILS or even NPAs every six months in order to make sure that the flight crews remain proficient at hand flying?

A hand flown ILS in a sim is not real. Wind is not real, feeling is not real. And you do only one, maybe zero, every six months. That is not good.

PD _FlighpathOBN. looks like you are more interested in this thread than you think...

[Denti]

The requirement to make 2 real autolands per month vanished for us around 8 or so years ago, since then we do not need to do any autolands or cat III approaches on the line, every six month in the simulator is enough.

And indeed the regulations require that we do a hand flown (FD allowed) ILS and at least one NPA using normal SOPs every six month, or each simulator event.

[sabenaboy]

Does anybody know what British Airways' OM says about the use (or not) of automation?

Every A/C (not pilot) in our fleet has to do 2 autolands/month for the A/C to stay CAT IIIB approved.

the regulations require that we do a hand flown (FD allowed) ILS and at least one NPA using normal SOPs every six month, or each simulator event. Yeah, that would keep someone current and proficient in hand flying! :}:ugh:

Luckily Denti's outfit appears to be smarter than the regulator. :p

[Mrs-rodge-bless-her]

BA I believe do a monitored approach on every leg. Basically the other guy will take over at minimums and land. FO or Capt. I also here that they can only disconnect the autopilot when fully configured and fully established.

This is one of the reasons why I was hesitant to take a job with them! Then again, I suppose I could have configured at 50 miles out and flew it then? hahaha

I could be wrong, but maybe a Nigel could correct me on this?

Anyone else also hear about Cathay? They have now forbidden it and every landing is (wait for it)..... AUTOLAND only!!!

What a disgrace.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

At our airline we have a very unusual way of conducting 'manual flight'.

PF assumes the role of 'autopilot', so even though he is flying the aircraft, PNF decides when flap will be selectecd, puts the gear down when he wants, and so on.

It very much discourages hand flying. That is the effect that it has in real life.

Whether that is the intended effect, I know not.

On the rare ocassion that an FO "hand flies", expect a less than jerk-free ride.

[sabenaboy]

At our airline we have a very unusual way of conducting 'manual flight'.

PF assumes the role of 'autopilot', so even though he is flying the aircraft, PNF decides when flap will be selectecd, puts the gear down when he wants, and so on. :mad::rolleyes::ugh::{:sad::=:}:*

You must be kidding, right?

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Sabenaboy. I wish I were.

[SMOC]

You can manually fly when ever you want at Cathay, autoland rumor is absolute crap. Autopilot is recommended in high workload situations and obviously during low vis approaches.

[main_dog]

Anyone else also hear about Cathay? They have now forbidden it and every landing is (wait for it)..... AUTOLAND only!!!

So what happens when they fly somewhere with a Cat I only ILS or, heaven forbid, somewhere without an ILS at all?

Common sense dictates that what you've heard is nonsense

Thanks for applying some common sense, John Smith... and yes, I can confirm that's absolute tripe!

[solitaire]

Mrs-rodge

Your info about BA is wrong as well. Autopilot can be disconnected whenever you like and landing pilot can take over when visual not necessarily at minimums. There is also no requirement to do real autolands regularly any more. The sim every 6 months is sufficient.

Cheers

[sabenaboy]

Solitaire, would you care to tell us more about BA's policy? From what I've heard hand flying raw data is highly unusual at BA. Disconnecting A/P (but keeping F/D + A/T on) somewhere on final would be the norm? Does that sound more correct?

[Knockitoff]

In my outfit, we fly two diffrent 'types' with totally diffrent roles, Regional and Medium haul to be precise. For the Regional guys the rules of engagement are simple, ' do what you like' i.e Hand-fly, Auto-fly, whichever.. The OM, though not strictly, does suggest a "Judicious use of automation to reduce crew workload". But because we fly to a combination of Apts doing ILS,VOR, NDB/or Visual in one single hop !! (Yup, you heard it right), Short fields, Narrow rwys, etc. we end up having our share of (manual) fun quite often. But even here some chappies prefer doing even a Visual with the A/P !! To each their own I say..

On the other hand, the "Bus" drivers are much more restricted, they are 'forbidden' to dis-engage their fancy automation (A/T, FD, A/P..) unless a situation demands it (type of failure, QRH action,etc.):yuk: This I feel is downright absurd and dangerous. If you don't allow a bloke to practise his manual flying skills on his set of wheels , how do you expect him to be profecient when the auto-matics go out the window and the situation warrants every ounce of your skill.

Though a lot has been discussed on this forum regarding the importance of hand-flying, automation, a mix of both, etc,etc. nobody can dispute the fact that a Pilot's Flying-Skill is the one he's most proud of, and any lack of it results directly in underconfidence. Its also encouraging to see some carriers allowing/promoting hand-flying even in modern M/H category ac. I've also heard some european carriers mandate a Pilot to fly T/O to 10,000 and 10,000 to landing without any automation to keep their skill levels up especially the ones on FBW ac (twice in 30 consec. days or something). Hope this trend cathes on with others aswell.....
Till then, wish you Blue skies and Greasy landings ! :ok:

[PPRuNeUser0190]

Hello,

Flying for a Belgian charter company this is what our OM A says:
All pilots shall stay proficient in all 4 company defined levels of automation:
- no automation
- F/D only
- AP with basic modes
- LNAV / VNAV

Pilots are encouraged to practice their flying skills and there are no restrictions on the use of automation. However, F/D on take-off is recommended with wind shear reported.

Ab initio training includes F/D off flying including engine failure on take-off & one engine out approach in CAT I minima. The type rating check-out includes at least one F/D off approach in CAT I weather (a CAA requirement). But it also includes flying LNAV / VNAV approaches. Both should be known perfectly.

With this training & OM policy it's really a pleasure to fly (also because the destinations are not busy airports). Imo PM workload is not increased when flying F/D off, it's even reduced as the PM doesn't have to push all those buttons :8

But most importantly, keep having fun!

Cheers

[wiggy]

BA I believe do a monitored approach on every leg. Basically the other guy will take over at minimums and land. FO or Capt. I also here that they can only disconnect the autopilot when fully configured and fully established.

"Yes" to monitored approach, but otherwise as solitaire has pointed out you've been misinformed.

In BA the pilot flying the approach is certainly allowed to hand fly if conditions permit, and the "Landing pilot" can take control anytime, regardless of configuration, as long as he/she's got the required visual references.

Regarding the use of flight directors ( sabenaboy's question) - most leave them on into LHR, a few turn them off on a good day. On "my" fleet there's plenty of opportunity for non-F/D hand flying on the Caribbean sectors.

Autolands: Now covered in the recurrent simulator details, no requirement to do any for recency on the aircraft.

[Jet Fuel Addict]

In 11 years and many many flying hours, I have never been in a situation where the autopilot is unable to maintain an acceptable flight path. If you have then I put it to you that you were somewhere you should not have been thus opening further questions.

I cannot believe that in 11 years of flying you have not been in a situation where it would be better to disconnect rather than trying to let the autopilot "cope" with the situation. Do we not fly the same equipment?

I don't claim to be an excellent pilot, nor will I ever disconnect AP, AT on an approach (whether its IMC or VMC) without the approval of the PNF. As many have already mentioned there is a time and a place to do this. I'm no idiot.
Bottom line is though that flying an ILS is a pretty basic flying skill.
I would be terribly ashamed if I would not be able to do this.

[Tee Emm]

I ever disconnect AP, AT on an approach (whether its IMC or VMC) without the approval of the PNF

Absolutely fantastic CRM. Do you also beg the approval of the PNF before you go to the toilet or to blow your nose. :ugh:

[main_dog]

In 11 years and many many flying hours, I have never been in a situation where the autopilot is unable to maintain an acceptable flight path. If you have then I put it to you that you were somewhere you should not have been thus opening further questions.

You've perhaps never flown a "classic" airplane: on the 747-200 which I had the absolute honour and pleasure of flying for almost three years, disconnecting the automatics was often absolutely the only way to get out of sticky situations (like the autopilot turning the wrong way -towards the mountains of course- on localizer intercept).

On the equally lovely 747-400 I have been on for the last two years, I have already had to disconnect the A/P at least once as it was clearly doing something patently silly. Come to think of it, even on the ultra-modern A321 I flew for seven years, a couple times it went "wonky" leaving no alternative but manual flight (one classic example was the dual FMGC timeout as I recall).

The bottom line is, automatics are wonderful and quite reliable (especially on newer airplanes), but sooner or later they will fail/misbehave. As long as the guys/girls on the "sharp end" are the type that use automation as a mere tool, are well aware of the attitude and thrust required for each phase of flight and are comfortable flying manually, it will be a non-event.

Automatics are your slave, NOT the other way around. By all means use them, but depend on them at your own peril. :ok:

[Microburst2002]

The following, I think, are facts:

1- the better you hand fly, the better you understand automation
2- the better you understand automation, the better you can master automation
3- the better you are at hand flying, the safer pilot you are
4- the better you are at automated flying, the safer pilot you are

wait, a better order would be 4,3,1 and 2, maybe

[Mikehotel152]

Microburst2002: I couldn't agree more. :ok:


Shifting the debate slightly to one side, perhaps some of you more experienced pilots might be kind enough to suggest a practical approach for inexperienced pilots to improve their handling without letting their inexperience endanger the operation?

Putting the query in that way risks an outpouring of scorn from people who see my inexperience as a weapon with which to oust me from my 'shiny jet', but I firmly believe the self-improvement option is the only way ahead in a risk-averse industry. We all know there is a time and a place for 'practising'; so what do you think a 1000hr baby should be doing?

MH152

[parabellum]

Microburst2002 - 2,3, and 4 OK, 1, NO.

There are still people out there who will, as a first reaction to any problem, dump the autopilot and start handflying without proper analysis of the problem, the annoucement, "Disconnecting" usually comes a second or so after the buttons are pressed!

More than once I have seen the automatics dumped, (on B747-400), when they were actually doing what they were programmed to do, either the FMC had been incorrectly programmed or the MCP had been mishandled - No, automatics are not always right, but, on aircraft such as the B757, 767 and particularly the B747-400, more often than not they are.

[DozyWannabe]

There are still people out there who will, as a first reaction to any problem, dump the autopilot and start handflying without proper analysis of the problem, the annoucement, "Disconnecting" usually comes a second or so after the buttons are pressed!

IIRC this turned out to be a major factor in the Kegworth accident. The decision to shut down the (working - incorrectly diagnosed as faulty) starboard engine occurred simultaneously with the decision to disengage A/P and A/THR. This had the effect not only of masking the very real problem in the port engine by reducing the fuel flow to near idle in preparation for the descent, but also markedly increasing the workload on the flight deck, so much so that when the Captain started troubleshooting - "Now, what indications did we actually get?" - he was interrupted by having to receive and reply to radio calls, the opportunity to correct the mistake passed and the rest is history.

Not being a pilot myself, I can't say - but most of the correspondence I've received over the years, as well as a considerable amount I've read on here, tends to indicate that modern automation is about as good as it can get, and while it is no substitute for analytical human minds on the flight deck, any assumption that an unexpected change in vertical or horizontal track must be due to a fault in the automatics (as opposed to inadvertent mis-programming) is likely to be mistaken. If you're not happy, then disconnect the FMS routing, but surely using a basic altitude hold while diagnosing the problem should be the next step. If that doesn't have the desired effect, then go hand-flying, but bear in mind that it will consume a lot of effort - possibly more than you anticipate.

To be clear, I'm not saying that handflying should be a method of last resort. If it's a good day, your airspace is relatively clear and you feel comfortable, nothing should stop you. However, if and when things head south one should give careful consideration to the increase in workload that handflying will put on the PNF, as well as yourself.

[Tee Emm]

To be clear, I'm not saying that handflying should be a method of last resort. If it's a good day, your airspace is relatively clear and you feel comfortable, nothing should stop you

But in your post you say "Not being a pilot myself, but"

I honestly don't mean to denigrate your sentiments but I believe you do need to have been a jet transport pilot with both significant hand flying and automatic pilot monitoring experience to understand the subject under discussion. Hand flying these aircraft should be a normal accepted skill whatever the weather conditions. The automatics are there as an aid to navigation in general - they should not be treated as a crutch because of a pilot's lack of competency in pure flying ability. Judging from accident investigation reports pertaining to jet transports it seems the latter is now the norm.

[parabellum]

The automatics are there as an aid to navigation in general


Hopefully a bit more than that! Under the right circumstances, properly programmed, they can 'fly' the aeroplane whilst the humans sort out the problems, with the correct emphasis on the problem as well as flying the machine, more relevant in the days sans Flight Engineer.

As DozyWannabe points out, Kegworth was a classic example of a time when full and proper use of the automatics may have brought about a better outcome.


Hand flying these aircraft should be a normal accepted skill whatever the weather conditions.

No argument there, just don't ignore the automatics when they can make life a bit easier, as a public transport pilot you have nothing to prove, there are no machismo prizes on offer.

[Microburst2002]

1- the better you hand fly the better you understand automation

is not exact, I agree. It should be ammended as follows:

...the better you may understand automation.

which means that if you don't study the books frequently and learn from experience and keep studiying from time to time, you will never fully understand your automation.

If you lack hand flying skills (for instance because you hardly have flown a few hours in a cessna, after which you directly came to the jet airliner and only hand flew it a little bit in the sim) automation becomes a "black box". You insert inputs, and outputs are the result, but you don't understand how things work inside the black box. That is, in my opinion, inacceptable from a professional pilot.

I sometimes get surprised when fellows with over 2000 hours on a jet demonstrate a very poor understanding of the principles involved in flight and how they have a lot of misconceptions about automation modes.

If you come from another jet airliner that you did fly manually frequently, then you will understand easily any automation, as long as the aircraft still has wings and engines.


The following, I think, are requisites por a transport pilot:

1- master your automation
2- don't be afraid of hand flying (no AP/FD, no A/THR)

I think that regular hand flying practise is good for both

[DozyWannabe]

I honestly don't mean to denigrate your sentiments but I believe you do need to have been a jet transport pilot with both significant hand flying and automatic pilot monitoring experience to understand the subject under discussion.

Really? A lot of NTSB investigators (including Greg Feith) never flew the line, and I like to think I do my research properly (My well-thumbed copy of HTBJ is never far away). I may have worded things badly, so...

Hand flying these aircraft should be a normal accepted skill whatever the weather conditions. The automatics are there as an aid to navigation in general - they should not be treated as a crutch because of a pilot's lack of competency in pure flying ability. Judging from accident investigation reports pertaining to jet transports it seems the latter is now the norm.

I agree with you completely (except for maybe the last sentence - there are still accidents and incidents where premature disconnection of the automatics increased flight deck workload). I think that airlines limiting hand-flying time is counter-productive, but at the same time I believe there's a time and a place to practice when you've got a planeload of people in the back. Would you disagree that practicing handflying through severe weather is something that largely belongs in the simulator - for the safety of pilots as well as passengers?

Parabellum has done a good job of putting what I wrote more succinctly.

more relevant in the days sans Flight Engineer.

Precisely. The role of F/E has not "disappeared" as such - the troubleshooting role that the F/E once filled has been divided between the two flight crew at the controls (with the aircraft systems management role being handled by the automatics). The troubleshooting role becomes a lot easier to play when you're not trying to manually handle the jet at the same time. Again, I think that parcticing handflying in a troubleshooting situation should definitely be part of recurrent training, but in these modern times that also belongs in the simulator. Any other time, as long as you're confident of your handling skills, go knock yourself out! Just please understand that along with the rest of the human cargo, I want you to be *really* sure you can handle it... :)

[sabenaboy]

The troubleshooting role becomes a lot easier to play when you're not trying to manually handle the jet at the same time. Again, I think that parcticing handflying in a troubleshooting situation should definitely be part of recurrent training, but in these modern times that also belongs in the simulator.

I agree and that brings us back to my thread starter (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/453212-your-airlines-policy-about-use-automation-during-flight.html#post6485843):
Policy for Use of Automation during Flight
Generally, automatic mode should be selected for cruise flight. In abnormal situations,
automatic capabilities should be used as much as possible, in order to minimise flight deck
workload. If in climb or approach, workload, weather conditions and crew fatigue permit, pilots
may fly manually in order to maintain their basic flying skills.

But I also agree with Tee Emm when he says "I honestly don't mean to denigrate your sentiments but I believe you do need to have been a jet transport pilot with both significant hand flying and automatic pilot monitoring experience to understand the subject under discussion. "

No offence intended, so please don't take it as such. I don't know your background (nothing in your profile) but unless you have spent considerable time on an airliner flight deck, an even if you made a good post (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/453212-your-airlines-policy-about-use-automation-during-flight-6.html#post6522202), you're not in a good position to fully understand the subject.

Respectfully,
Sabenaboy

[DozyWannabe]

@sabenaboy

My views on the subject are in agreement with yours, and I probably expressed them best here:

I don't know how many times one can repeat that automation was developed as a back-stop to allow flight crew to manage the flight more effectively - *not* as a substitute for airmanship period!

Even Bernard Ziegler in full flow never said "See? the aircraft is flying herself. Now you don't even have to monitor the instruments or maintain the situational awareness!".

For the record, I'm just a software engineer - but one with a love of aviation since childhood which manifested as a stint as an Air Cadet and an intent to join the RAF until I turned 16 and got long hair, rock music and pacifism. Part of me would love to fly airliners for a living, but the fact is that I simply couldn't afford it in this day and age. As far as this forum goes I try very hard to not stick my oar in unless the info I have is confirmed and/or documented, and I'm always willing to accept if I've overstepped my mark.

As far as the technical aspects of hand-flying airliners go, naturally I'm speaking from a position of relative ignorance (but like to think I'm reasonably well-versed in aeronautics, aviation history and accident investigation for a layman), and as such will defer, but as far as the business aspect of the things you are discussing goes - believe me it's not just happening to airlines. I got some positive feedback from a post I made the last time this subject was discussed, which is here:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/437803-automation-bogie-raises-its-head-yet-again-7.html#post6183737

The knowledge I have regarding high-level design and specification of modern automatics (particularly as they relate to the A320 and her descendants) came from my Software Engineering/Reliability professor, Peter Mellor - who you'll find deeply involved in many of the discussions on the development of airliner FBW going back to the late 1980s. The A320 story became the introduction to our first-year Software Engineering module - both as an example of how complex, multiply-redundant safety-critical computer systems are designed and specified, and as a cautionary tale - how important it is to make sure that things are done right and how dire the consequences can be if they are not. It reappeared in the final year Software Reliability module, which went more into the detail of how redundancy was designed into the systems and implemented.

This discussion doesn't really relate to that a great degree, since for the most part we are talking about modern autopilots (FMS/FMC etc.). I'm willing to stay in the background here, but as an interested observer I hope you don't mind me putting a view forward.

[sabenaboy]

@DozyWannabe
as an interested observer I hope you don't mind me putting a view forward.

Absolutely not. Thanks for your interesting contribution. :ok:

[gatbusdriver]

By all means Dozy.

But you must give the majority of us credit for the fact that we do not hand fly into busy TMA's, we do not hand fly through bad weather/around bad weather, and most probably do not hand fly in IMC. We do not do it because we can't, but for the fact that monitoring becomes a much more important task during these times. Good pilots know how to manage workload as well as many other things, and as such hand fly at appropriate times.

I would add though that pilots do not have a good grasp of punctuation or spelling (for pilots add I)!

I fly because I love it (bar the night flights!), I loved it since my first AEF flight out of BOH on the Chipmunk, why on earth do I want to manage the whole flight, bar the last 400', via the MCP and FMS.

Regards

GBD

[DozyWannabe]

But you must give the majority of us credit for the fact that we do not hand fly into busy TMA's, we do not hand fly through bad weather/around bad weather, and most probably do not hand fly in IMC.

Believe me I do - in fact I'd be mortified to think I'd implied otherwise!

We do not do it because we can't, but for the fact that monitoring becomes a much more important task during these times. Good pilots know how to manage workload as well as many other things, and as such hand fly at appropriate times.

Absolutely. That thread I linked to contained some information that I frankly found frightening regarding how some operations were making junior F/Os worried about hand-flying the aircraft under pressure from the business to keep costs down, and I wondered then as I do now what's going to happen when those junior F/Os become Captains in due course.

[Denti]

and most probably do not hand fly in IMC. I do agree with your other statements, however that i do not share. Yes, we should not overload us and the other pilot, however flying in IMC is a major part of our skill set and as thus it needs to be trained. Especially to be able to call upon it when everything is not working out as it should.

[sabenaboy]

and most probably do not hand fly in IMC
I agree with the other statements, but I will hand fly in "benign IMC"
A few harmless (layered, non convective, no embedded CB's forecast or reported) cloud layers and good visibility below a cloud base of let's say 500' AGL would not necessarily stop me from hand flying raw data down the ILS.
With lower cloud base and or low visibility I'll let "James" take care of tracking the ILS.

Even though I've hand flown the A320 simulator without F/D along the ILS, to a full stop with 25' ceiling and 100m vis, doesn't mean I'd ever want to do that in the real a/c! :)

[solitaire]

From what I've heard hand flying raw data is highly unusual at BA. Disconnecting A/P (but keeping F/D + A/T on) somewhere on final would be the norm? Does that sound more correct?

That just about sums it up.
I can only speak for longhaul but why anyone would want to practise raw data flying after a 8-12 hour overnight sector defeats me. :confused::confused:
Such flying can be practised on Caribbean visual approaches if one is desperate. And on my fleet the A/T is always on.

[Aerlingus231]

Just thought the last minute in this episode of ACI was worth a mention, I suppose any awareness the public gains into this can only be good. [Full] Turning Point [Northwest Airlines Flight 85] - Mayday [Air Crash Investigation] - YouTube

[Slasher]

Even though I've hand flown the A320 simulator without F/D
along the ILS, to a full stop with 25' ceiling and 100m vis,
doesn't mean I'd ever want to do that in the real a/c!

Only Charlton Heston could do that (as well as dodge an A36
without using TCAS) but of course he had a REAL aeroplane.

H6NpVBYCVW0 IM2zCDpDuLY <--skip to 01.00

[sabenaboy]

Have a look at this Safety Alert for Operators (http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2013/SAFO13002.pdf) (SAFO) issued by the FAA on 4 jan 2013.

Glad to see that the FAA is now encouraging what my company has been doing all along.

[Centaurus]

Glad to see that the FAA is now encouraging what my company has been doing all along

I can't see the FAA recommendation changing the use of all automatics policies of Emirates, Ethiad, Singapore Airlines, China Air, Air China, and all the other big players in the airline transport industry. Nice try, though but another case of re-inventing the wheel.

[woodja51]

Isnt that what "handling" sims are for?... Seems best to practice in the box more often than the aircraft with punters on board to me... But that might require more training resources, hence cost in order to satisfy all the other Apollo 13 scenarios demanded in the semi annual matrix of events wja

[main_dog]

woodja51
Isnt that what "handling" sims are for?...

I don't know about your airline but in mine we get one handling sim a year... even counting the twice-yearly OPC you would only be practising three times a year. I don't know about you, but I need at least one hand-flown (ideally raw data) approach a month to keep the rust off my scan and confidence in my skills.

I am honestly puzzled, what is the big deal with, er, a pilot simply flying his/her airplane, regardless of there being "punters on board" or not? :confused:

[737Jock]

It's not a big deal...

Honestly, if you don't trust your manual handling skills to be sufficient to use them with passengers onboard you shouldn't be in the front at all.

There is nothing dangerous about handflying in itself!

[bubbers44]

Hand flying skills must be maintained at all times. Relying on automation because you can't hand fly will just result in AF747 situations happening over and over when the automation trips off.

Most all of the aircraft I have flown have lost automation, anti skid, accurate navigation, radar, normal flaps and numerous other failures over 23,000 hrs. All easy to manage by hand flying and common sense.

Why depend on automation to fix all your problems now. It never worked in the past. Newer airplanes don't make them fool proof as stated in the first paragraph.

[Check Airman]

I am honestly puzzled, what is the big deal with, er, a pilot simply flying his/her airplane, regardless of there being "punters on board" or not? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

I've always wondered about that myself. If it's not safe to do with "fare paying passengers" behind me, it's not safe for me to do with the seats empty either.

Along those lines, what happens if it's a plane full of airline employees using their staff travel benefits? Since they don't pay fares, is it safe then?;)

[de facto]

Hand flying skills must be maintained at all times. Relying on automation because you can't hand fly will just result in AF747 situations happening over and over when the automation trips off.

Apologies for this slight thread drift but arent OVERRUNS the result of lack flight skills mixed with poor judgement?
One can only 'yahoo' overrun and a list of AMERICAN AIRLINES will pop up,worrying indeed..
Relying on automation is also true for not checking AUTO speed brake deployement along with poorly accomplished SOPs..(call out).

[Greek Girl]

Can anyone share their opinions about Turkish Airlines safety and pilot competency? Last report from euronews stated that 13 former pilots described huge safety concerns.

[barit1]

It will be interesting to see airline mgmt comments on the NTSB review of Asiana SFO. (http://www.ntsb.gov/) 11 Dec.