Once a pilot - now a computer's sidekick

[A37575]

Following the Air France Airbus A330 accident in the South Atlantic on 1 June 2009, the French Authority BEA made several recommendations to prevent future accidents of this type. Aviation Week magazine reports that a human factors working group has been set up as part of the BEA investigation. Better training is likely to become a crucial follow-up action as the report is absorbed and discussed across the industry.

Talk-fests on the subject are a dime a dozen and will get nowhere until operators realise that the solution is straight forward. And that is the accent on flight simulator training must be reversed from automation back to basic principles of flying an aeroplane on raw data manual flying. Raw data includes flight director turned off; despite what some airline instructors think.

Currently 90 percent of simulator training involves automation. In spite of this it has been known for many years that automation addiction forced upon crews by manufacturers and operators leads to complacency and loss of basic instrument flying skills. Besides the spectacular demise of the Air France A330 there have been numerous other jet transport accidents where the cause has been poor instrument flying ability caused in part by over-reliance on automation.

Below is an article extract cut and pasted from the latest issue of Curt Lewis & Associates Flight safety website No 147. It should be absorbed by every automation dependant airline pilot. The author makes his point very clearly that operators must grasp the nettle and fix the problem before the inevitable next accident caused by the pilot's lack of basic instrument flying ability.
The article is headed Once a pilot, now a computer's sidekick


Industry analysts estimated last week that in the next 20 years, the airlines are going to need 466,000 new pilots. When I said to an airline pilot friend that such a job market would make it easy for his son to follow in his footsteps, he smiled.

"I think he wants a flying job instead," he replied.

I noted that this sounded odd coming from a fellow who just flew a planeload of passengers back from overseas.

"I didn't fly," he replied. "The computer flew. I sat in the front office, monitoring systems."

"Who flies better," I asked, "you or the computer?"

"Oh, the computer," he replied. "No contest, as long as things function. When they stop functioning, it's a different story. Then the computer quits, and I go to work. Provided I still remember how."

The dilemma isn't new, but it's being discussed more and more frequently. Pilots don't fly enough. They get rusty, and when they really need to call upon their flying muscles, they find them either atrophied or insufficiently developed in the first place. The symbol of the problem has become Air France's Flight 447, an Airbus dropped by its pilots into the ocean three years ago, according to a French inquiry's final report released last month.

When a faulty speed sensor made the autopilot quit, two co-pilots on the flight deck would have needed to hand-fly their Airbus 330, established in cruise at 35,000 feet over the Atlantic, until the captain, who was taking his scheduled nap, returned to the cockpit. Their task was to fly straight and level for two or three minutes on instruments, with no visual reference to the horizon, without reliable airspeed indication, in light turbulence. They couldn't do it. By the time the captain came back, the Airbus had stopped flying and was about a minute from contacting the water.

In 1915, Arthur Roy Brown, the flying ace credited with bringing down Manfred von Richthofen, the Red Baron, had his pilot's license issued with six hours of flight time. By comparison, even the least experienced pilot on AF447 had 2,800 hours in his logbook. It isn't that today's pilots train fewer hours; it's that the study of increasingly complex systems and regulations compete for time and emphasis with flying skills. Airmanship and command authority are being boxed in by petty rules, for the comfort of lawyers and bureaucrats rather than to enhance operational efficiency and flight safety.

Before leaving the flight deck for his scheduled rest, the captain of Air France's ill-fated Flight 447 was obliged, as part of his briefing, to ask his relief pilot if he had a commercial pilot's license. Why would anyone weigh down the captain's workload with such a query? Would an unlicensed impostor say to the captain: "Crikey, skipper, I didn't know you needed a license for this gig" or would he just lie and say: "Yes, sir."

The crew whose fate it was to be flying Flight 447 had the necessary qualifications. The problem was that they had them in their wallets, rather than in their heads. Qualifications in wallets satisfy bureaucracies, but only qualifications in heads ensure the safety of a flight.

It was a "Thales"-type speed sensor that iced up as the Airbus was skirting a thunderstorm high above the South Atlantic. Air France, aware of the limitations of the device, had just begun to replace the $3,500 units. It hadn't gotten around to changing it in the ill-fated airplane before it departed Rio de Janeiro for Paris on the night of June 1, 2009. Grounding the entire Airbus fleet until all units were replaced may have cost only a fraction of what the accident, investigation and lawsuits will end up costing Air France, to say nothing of the tragic loss of 228 lives. Some analysts argue, though, that turning all potential flaws into mandatory "no go" items would make air transportation unaffordable.

The "Thales" sensors were more susceptible to icing than other designs, but they didn't all ice up, and the planes carrying those that did remained flyable and were landed safely by their Air France crews. So were two other Airbus 330s belonging to Paris-based Air Caraibes Atlantique. Only Flight 447 fell into the ocean. One disaster is one too many, of course, but it was no more an inevitable consequence than it would be for a blown tire to flip a car.

Airspeed is crucial to flight. Too fast and the plane can break up; too slow and it can fall out of the sky. When airspeed indicators become unreliable, the computerized systems - autopilot and auto-throttles - quit. On the Airbus, this is announced by the aural warning of a cavalry charge, the computer's way of calling the human pilot to the rescue.

Aviation is full of pithy sayings. One is that an airspeed sensor has no backup except airmanship. Losing airspeed readings can range from a non-event to a dire emergency depending on the pilot's skill and additional circumstances. The autopilot quitting on AF447, as it was designed to do after losing reliable airspeed indication, could and should have been a non-event. It left an airworthy aircraft flying straight and level in light turbulence. All Flight 447 needed was a pilot to fly it - or just let the plane fly itself, which is what planes trimmed for cruise flight tend to do in stable air, especially if their wings are kept level - but, as the cockpit voice recorder revealed, there were no pilots on the flight deck. There were two systems managers being confronted by a system that suddenly had become unmanageable.

Real pilots would have disregarded the rebellious computers going viral with flashing lights, cavalry charges, buzzers and bells, huffily announcing all the things they stopped doing for the humans aboard or required the humans to do for them. They would have let the computers crash and concentrated on flying the plane. The systems managers stopped flying and crashed with their computers.

This isn't how the French inquiry puts it, needless to say. I wouldn't put it this way in an inquiry myself. I'm exaggerating to make the point that our technology may be getting ahead of itself. If so, we may hire 466,000 systems managers of an unmanageable system in the next 20 years.
Once a pilot, now a computer (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/18/george-jonas-once-a-pilot-now-a-computers-sidekick/)

[aussie027]

Great article, thanks.

Re the worldwide pervasive over use and reliance on automation this is well worth a look by all pilots airline training departments and managements.

This talk was given at American Airlines training centre in 1997.
How much worse have things gotten in this regard since then??? How many accidents??

Children of Magenta, well worth 25min of your time.

Children of Magenta - YouTube

[teresa green]

DON'T get me started. As a silly old bastard, who believes every pilot in this country should be thrown out into the bush, and taught to think for her/him self, (there is nothing like standing on a deserted runway in the GAFA and work a problem out for yourself, just you and the flies.) No comfortable Sim, no obliging LAME, just you. What you learn then, no SIM can ever teach you. Self preservation comes first, then some lateral thinking, then a decision. And you have started a basic airmanship that will take you thru your career. (If your decision is correct) You cannot build a brick wall unless you have a firm foundation, and that is the same in this career. I absolutely despair that this sort of thinking has been taken away, though the decisions of some senior QF Skippers has given me some hope when they returned to the basics under pressure, and dutifully return their bus and PAX to safety. But you can bet your hat, they were either service trained or GA trained. If you have not scared the absolute ****e out of yourself at least once, then you should not be flying commercial jets.

[shnev]

Really nicely said, t-g

[Oriana]

Whilst I agree, especially with you TG, the people 'paying the wages' and 'resourcing' the operation do not have a sufficient depth of understanding about what it takes to deliver an aeroplane full of people from A to B, and understand that 'the aeroplanes fly themselves'.

They see pilots as 'process workers' and minimum regulatory standard are probably 'excessive'.

And, if they lose a jet or two across the world - well, that's the cost of doing business.

Cynical? Maybe.

[WMUOSF]

200% T G
Fly the Aircraft first sort problems later.

[sheppey]

And don't fool yourself this automation dependency will never happen in Australia. It has long been with Australia's major and regional operators already and CASA appears disinterested as long as regulatory boxes are ticked.

Anecdotal as always - but when you have a domestic airline first officer offered a visual hand flown approach into Hobart in broad daylight by the captain and replies hesitantly that he would rather watch the captain because he had never done a manual approach into Hobart (basically a joining procedure on the downwind leg), then you realise that either his line training needs to be looked at, or his self confidence. Or both. Two or three cyclic simulator sessions a year to meet CASA regulatory requirements are clearly insufficient to maintain manual flying skills; especially as they are mostly button pushing highly intricate flight management exercises rather than practicing the basics of hand flying.

One cannot help feeling sorry for today's pilots who are so welded to the automatics and the magic of the magenta line, that many have become privately apprehensive of hand flying an average jet. What an indictment and a sad reflection of today's airline pilot lack of basic manual flying skills. Crews can be constrained by company SOP, and perhaps personal laziness plays its part too. It could also be argued that training departments must bear a fair amount responsibility for the current situation apropos automation dependency. What is certain is the problem will not go away and as someone remarked earlier the Air France A340 crash is just the visible and tragic tip of the iceberg.

[TallestPoppy]

Sheppey, at what stage was this offered by the Captain?

If this had been a discussion prior to the top of descent, then a mental model could have been shared, and agreement had on how the visual approach would be fine.

Despite there probably being a nice diagram in the QRH, a sharing of each pilots understanding of how the approach would be flown, at what config, at what point, and how any go-around would be flown would go a long way to ensuring a safe outcome.

TG, new pilots entering the industry may not have our background, but if we set the right tone in the flight deck, maybe we can give them the benefits of our experience in a positive manner.

[sheppey]

then a mental model could have been shared, and agreement had on how the visual approach would be fine.


In all seriousness, does a pilot really need to share a "mental" model to fly an aeroplane by hand on a sunny day? :rolleyes:

[Keg]

Airspace and approach design play a big part in this now too. How often do you get to actually do a visual circuit? For the QF 767 drivers, there is only a couple of places where you can fly a proper base and final approach let alone joining downwind a circuit altitude.

With an increased focus on the automatics, QARs, speed tolerances, and so on there is also an increasing focus on programming the FMC so that you can actually leave it all engaged for as long as possible. Training departments themselves are breeding this in so it'll be interesting to see where we're at in 10-20 years time when the current breed of new F/Os become training captains.

[captainng]

I learnt to fly in the bush in WA and NT flying with only myself to rely on.

15 years later and I am in europe flying B737ng with 200 hr cadets.

I am a great believer in pilots being able to hand fly and this is what I do with guys once they get comfortable with jet ( about 200hrs) I then introduce raw data, ILS, then Flying vectors at night and then take the map modes off (all over a few months) most guys that fly with me can now fly raw data hand flown dme arcs to vor/ils arrivals all with just HSI! no map mode on at all and it seems to really widen their situational awareness as well.

All these guys are 200 hr guys initially and it can be taught but it needs captains who are willing to let guys do it as you may have to tell them to go around or take the controls back off of them. I have never set off the OFDM and have seen some pretty atrocious approaches but i would rather see them in a controlled enviroment than on a dark stormy night!!

If you can't fly a modern jet like it was piston twin should you really be in the seat anyway!

[MASTEMA]

The theory/rule that it take's 10,000hrs to 'master' anything from mowing the lawn to the most delicate brain surgery has been around for a while. An interesting book 'The Outliers' (Malcolm Gladwell) touches on this.

In the case of Airline flying, the focus usually appears to be on the end result i.e. the standard of landing.

If the landing is a greaser and the rest of the operation is crap, as far as I am concerned, no cigar.

All of it is important, from the moment you arrive at work early; in a well presented uniform; Briefings correct; SOPs correct; R/T correct; Professional PAs; Smooth accurate skills maintained and demonstrated; but most important, attitude correct.

If you don't like complying with the standard, then you should leave.

Young to Old, GEN X to GEN Z, from the ennui to the heat in the kitchen, when it comes down to it, some 'individuals' should not be anywhere near an aircraft.

[aussie027]

Capt NG,
Very well done and said sir.:ok:

A US airline yrs ago, cannot remember which one, used to do something similar in its line training with new pilots.
Cannot remember whether during the line training Captains worked up thru the automation levels starting from raw data, no moving map, fully manual flying and do it by brain etc to full FMS integration or down the other way as you are doing but the benefits for the new pilots were huge.

Taught them, (drummed into them), whichever way it was done that they could fly the plane like a piston twin with raw data and brain power with ALL the automatic everything turned off and it still flies like an aeroplane because it is just an aeroplane!!
It is NOT a flying keyboard and bunch of computer systems (or a video game), like too many designers, engineers and managers think these days!!

The rest of the goodies are there to make things easier, at the right times, NOT to be used slavishly for every last minute of flight and in every situation.
See the above video link I posted. He reiterates all that very well, along with the fact that the automatics do not know what the word "NOW" means, nor can they ever respond that way, and that too many pilots are relying on the automatics to save the day or situation when it all turns to sh.., .....errr,.... goes pear shaped.:E

Someone told me a long time ago to remember that any aeroplane no matter how big or sophisticated has a wing and engines and your job was to fly and mange them both first above all else.
If those 2 things were within their limitations/ envelopes and doing what they should be doing you would fly along OK.
We saw with Air France what happens when one of those 2 essential things is not.:{

[rogerrapoport]

Rio-Paris airbus crash 'might have been prevented' if pilots had been briefed on previous incident - Europe - World - The Independent (http://tinyurl.com/7o3k7jh)
The Rio Paris Crash: Air France 447 (http://www.airfrance447crash.com/)

LONDON INDEPENDENT
Rio-Paris airbus crash 'might have been prevented' if pilots had been briefed on previous incident



By John Lichfield

Tuesday, 17 July 2012
A French investigating judge is examining evidence that the Rio-Paris airbus crash might have been prevented if the pilots had been briefed on a terrifying incident the previous year.


According to an online update (The Rio Paris Crash: Air France 447 (http://www.airfrance447crash.com/)) to a book on the crash, which will appear in print shortly, Air France and Airbus failed to notify pilots about a crisis aboard a Paris to Madagascar flight on 16 August 2008 that bore striking resemblances to the chain of calamities which befell flight AF447 over the south Atlantic nine months later.

An American writer and aviation expert, Roger Rapoport, says the events aboard the Air France Madagascar flight – and the successful action taken by its pilot to prevent a crash – are now central to the Rio-Paris manslaughter investigation which is being conducted by a French judge, Sylvie Zimmerman.

Mr Rapoport says an independent study by aviation experts sent to the judge last week took a much tougher line on the possible criminal responsibilities of Airbus and Air France than the inconclusive final report of the French air accident investigation bureau, the BEA, the previous week. His book reveals that the experts’ criticism is based partly on events aboard an Airbus 340, AF flight 373, from Paris to Tananarive in Madagascar in August 2008.

The pilot of the Madgasacar flight lost reliable indication of his airspeed because the recorders, or pitot tubes, had iced up. Amid heavy turbulence he descended to 4,000 feet, turning off the instructions from the aircraft’s computerised guidance system or ‘flight director’.

Much the same circumstances led to the crash of AF 447 in the south Atlantic on 1 June 2009, which killed 228 passengers and crew. In that case, however, the crew lifted the plane’s nose and made a series of other calamitous misjudgements which led the aircraft to plunge into the ocean.

The BEA report suggested the crash was caused by a mixture of systems’ failure and pilot error. It did suggest, however, that the pilots may have been led into error by the computerised fight director.

Air France and Airbus were placed under formal investigation for manslaughter in March last year. Judge Zimmermann must decide whether to recommend that criminal charges should be brought against either company or both.

Mr Rapoport quotes a veteran French aviation expert as saying: “If Air France and Airbus had done the right thing and notified Airbus pilots about the specifics of this near disaster on the Madagascar bound flight, new emergency procedures and better training certainly could have saved the lives of 228 passengers and crew…”

Jacques Rocca, a spokesman for Airbus, contacted by The Independent today, dismissed these conclusions as “false… just plain wrong.”

He added: “To suggest that we failed to warn airlines or pilots that flight directors are unreliable when the pitot tubes fail is absurd. All pilots know this already.”

Mr Rapoport told the Independent: “The BEA report makes it clear that that 'the absence of any (pilot) training at high altitude in manual aeroplane handing’ and the failure of ‘feedback mechanisms’ made it impossible to apply the correct recovery procedures. The Madagascar flight was a case-book example of how pilots should react but the details were not circulated.”

A French lawyer who represents families of victims of the crash, Maitre Stephane Busy, confirmed to The Independent today that the Madagascar incident formed part of the judicial inquiry. He said: “The problem is that putting the ‘flight director’ on ‘off’ is recommended but… there is no reminder on the instruments panel. Air France and Airbus knew that this could be a problem but they allowed their aircraft to continue to fly.”

Cedric Leurquin, an Air France spokesman, said the Madagascar flight incident has been “normally analysed” and “concerned stakeholders were informed”. He added: “For the rest… Air France…adheres faithfully to the BEA's analyses published on July 5.”

Mr Rapoport’s book is an updated English language version of a book published in French last year. It went online last night and will appear in a print version shortly as “The Rio-Paris Crash; Air France 447”.

[4Greens]

My problem with the Airbus is that I cant see what the copilot is doing with his stick.

[Sunfish]

Let me put it in Accountant speak for you.

1. They are not heartless bastards.

2. The airlines are continuously asked to pay more and more for aircraft by the manufacturer.

3. According to the manufacturer, the price of the aircraft is justified by the sophistication of it automated systems.

Answer the following Airline management question:

"Exactly how does all this expensive computer controlled automation translate into more profits for my shareholders?????????? Because if it doesn't, then I don't want it!!!!!!"

Sadly; the usual answer to that question is that it allows the airline to employ cheaper and less experienced pilots with no loss of safety.

You have already heard Alan Joyce justify engineering retrenchments and their substitution with cheap offshore labor for virtually the same reason.

Peter Abeles onced asked virtually this very question and it triggered young Sunfish to start studying for an MBA to try and understand the answer.

[teresa green]

Excellent NG. My time as a F/O was not spent reading the newspapers on a long flight, it was hands on to a degree, with a usually vigilant Skipper who had no hesitation at throwing me a curly one, at 0300. That used to irritate me at times, but long ago recognised the professionalism of the man. I in turn did the same, and have at retired meetings have a former F/O say I enjoyed flying with you, I learnt from you. That does not make me anyone special, it just makes me someone who continued a should be time honored line, of never stop learning. And so it should be today, the bloody things are just as dangerous as they ever were, in the hands of incompetents, who somehow slipped thru the net, and they should be weeded out with no apologies.

[virginexcess]

The real question here is "are there statistically more crashes since advent of automation, or less?". I'm tipping that there are less. For every accident caused by lack of basic flying skills, there are probably 10 prevented by automation and improved warning systems.

Overall, I'm betting that automation has resulted in a net increase in safety.

The next phase of the evolution is to try and maintain automation proficiency alongside basic flying skill currency, all within the constraints placed on training resources. Not easy. Given the relative importance, automation proficiency will be the priority.

Now let's take what we know about automation, the quantum of training that a young airline pilot gets these days, and the perceived status of a pilot job, then apply that to the forecast requirement for pilots over the next 20 years.

It's pretty clear that we are going to see the trend continue toward a more regulated use of automation. It is the only way that the airlines are going to be able to put enough bums in seats to fly the aircraft on order.

Will there be crashes as a result; you bet, but there will be a lot less than if you allowed these low hour pilots to hand fly jet aircraft around.

I can say this from a position of being a GA pilot, a military pilot and an airline pilot. Once upon a time i could hand fly with the best of them. Now days I am struggling to do a basic maneuver. I still do them from time to time, but only when well briefed with weather and traffic conditions permitting.

As far as being able to grab the jet from the autopilot in IMC when everything is going pear shaped? I don't think so.

[prospector]

As far as being able to grab the jet from the autopilot in IMC when everything is going pear shaped? I don't think so.

That will be a very contentious statement I would think.

[virginexcess]

That will be a very contentious statement I would think.

To clarify

First option is to revert to basic automation modes to try and recover problem, if that doesn't work manual intervention is the final level of protection.

I will qualify that by saying this philosophy requires a solid understanding of what the aircraft should be doing in a any given automation mode so that early recognition of abnormal behaviour can be identified and a less automated mode can be selected to rectify the problem.

Gone are the days of immediately reverting to hand flying when the automatics are not behaving as expected, or at least they should be gone.

Additionally, in most modern jets, any hand flying intervention should normally be limited to establishing stable flight and re-engaging the automatics.

[Capn Bloggs]

Will there be crashes as a result; you bet, but there will be a lot less than if you allowed these low hour pilots to hand fly jet aircraft around.

Nonsense. Nobody is suggesting that one hand-flies when the workload is high; that is what the automatics are for. But there are plenty of scenarios where hand-flying proficiency can be maintained in safe conditions.

The whole point is that we must have the skills to immediately jump on the controls and continue to fly (or be able to monitor the automatics properly) when something goes terribly wrong such as AF447. The Turkish 737 was another example of automation dependency. I'll bet every one of those guys could to do a lovely 25° turn up and down in the canned Sim exercise. But they still got killed because they either didn't notice or could not work out WTF was going on. That's because they weren't current or in the mindset of actually flying the aeroplane. Handflying skill does improve your monitoring of the automatics and allows you to jump in and save the aeroplane when the AP spits the dummy.

What's next; autopilot and ATS becoming No-Go items?

Let's get out of this mindset of "experience is going down, so let's mandate more use of the automatics". Let's increase training and recurrent proficiency to achieve and maintain the skill that will ultimately save our and the pax's lives.

[virginexcess]

Ah yes Bloggs

The problem is that you are coming at it from a pilots point of view, which is 'no accident is acceptable'. Unfortunately the bean counters control the resources, so they have a formula that comes up with a number that equates to acceptable number of hull losses. There in lies the problem.

The bean counters are happy to accept a certain number of crashes and we aren't, so we have to make do with what we are given to train our pilots.

In our operation we have such limited opportunity to actually hand fly that all currency items are dealt with in the simulator. As a result of having to complete all the mandatory regulatory requirements there is precious little time left to devote to maintaining basic flying skills. Ideal? No. Reality? Yes.

Let's increase training and recurrent proficiency to achieve and maintain the skill that will ultimately save our and the pax's lives.

That is naive in the extreme. Training and recurrent proficiency are a cost tot he airline and affect somebody's KPI's. Until the accident rate climbs to a level that the bean counters find unacceptable, they won't throw one extra dollar at it.

[Centaurus]

Gone are the days of immediately reverting to hand flying when the automatics are not behaving as expected, or at least they should be gone.


That belief is what scares the hell out of me. The reason why pilots should be perfectly confident of reverting to hand flying when the automatics are not behaving as expected, is that it is more efficient and far quicker to go Click Click and take immediate control than furiously going heads down poking buttons.
No pilot likes to make a fool of himself in front of the other crew member. And the reason why many pilots espouse staying with automatics through thick and thin is because they know they have become rusty, and thus incapable of hand flying competence. They would never admit it but I suspect they are frightened of losing face in front of the other pilot. Loss of face is not just an Asian trait. It applies equally to all captains and first officers.

[virginexcess]

I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head, however i would contend that it is actually a higher workload to hand fly due to the nature of automated flight decks.

When flying with the autopilot engaged the PF can make mode changes as required.
When hand flying all mode changes have to be articulated to the PM. Whilst that may sound simple, it isn't always.

Again, the days of disconnecting and pointing at the runway are gone. At the very least you have to call for the appropriate mode so that you have flight director guidance.

Any in flight occurence that requires an autopilot disconnect is most likely going to pop up on the FDR. When/if it does the Captain will be sent a please explain. If he has continued flight without appropriate flight director guidance it is unlikely that he is going to be patted on the back and have his exemplary flying skill praised. More likely he is going to be sent to the sim for some more training on how to manage the automatics.

It is a downward spiral that's for sure.

[Gnadenburg]

Centaurus

The ability to confidently take out misbehaving or limiting automatics, put the aircraft where it needs to be, re-instate automatics if need be, is a ancillary concern in this debate in relation to the value of hand flying proficiency.

If the Airbus safety record with mode confusion and lack of the basics is not a concern, the fact that some Airbus models have multiple Operational Engineering Bulletins stating failures of automation to deliver accurate Flight Director in critical phases should be.

I feel robbed of my hand flying proficiency by the industry and regulator.

[prospector]

It usd to be that the Auto Pilot was there to assist the pilot, it would now appear that the Pilot is there to assist the Auto Pilot.

How many more years of UAV operations before they are cleared to carry Pax???

[FlareArmed]

Again, the days of disconnecting and pointing at the runway are gone. At the very least you have to call for the appropriate mode so that you have flight director guidance.

What stops you turning off the flight director and auto-thrust? Whatever happened to a bit of "old' power plus attitude? Oh that's right – nobody knows what an attitude is any more: they just chase a flight director.

If you can't quote some basic attitudes and approximate power for, a lap of the circuit, cruise, descent, base-turn and final, you do not belong in the flightdeck of a jet.

[Tee Emm]

OTE]
Let's get out of this mindset of "experience is going down, so let's mandate more use of the automatics". Let's increase training and recurrent proficiency to achieve and maintain the skill that will ultimately save our and the pax's lives.


"I got no brakes, man." Latest incident report published in Flight International. US investigators have determined that the speed brakes on a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700 were not armed before the twinjet slid off the runway at Chicago Midway. The crew also did not deploy the thrust reversers until 16 seconds after touchdown.
The crew had created extra workload by initially uploading and briefing the wrong approach procedure, and then when they realised the error after they left the holding pattern, they again increased their workload by reprogramming the FMC for the correct approach.

Isn't this the the old story all over again? Unnecessary button pushing when the priority should have been on flying the aircraft? Then they got a flap overspeed resulting in more distraction and then forgot to do the landing checklist .

The autobrakes were selected earlier but after touchdown the speed brakes did not deploy and the reversers were not actuated. So the automatic brakes did not actuate. Still the penny had not dropped until the CVR heard "I got no brakes, man".

The captain then applied full manual braking and reverse thrust was engaged with 1,500 ft of runway remaining - an action which automatically deployed the speed brakes. The aircraft left the runway and rolled 200 ft into grass. None of the 139 passengers and crew members were injured in the 26 April 2011 incident.

What is the solution to this type of crass bad airmanship? Because in all probability it is not just an isolated incident. Some would recommend more still automation. Others may see it differently.

[Trent 972]

AIRBUS Golden Rule 6 (http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_library_items/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-SOP-SEQ03.pdf) (250kb)


When things don’t go as expected, Take over If the aircraft does not follow the desired vertical flight path / lateral flight path or the selected targets, and time does not permit analyzing and solving the observed behavior, revert without delay from:
• FMS guidance to selected guidance;
or from,
• Selected guidance to hand flying.

Rule 7


Use the correct level of automation for the task On highly automated and integrated aircraft, several levels of automation are available to perform a given task:
• FMS modes and guidance; or,
• Selected modes and guidance.
The correct level of automation depends on:
• The task to be performed:
− short-term (tactical) task; or,
− long-term (strategic) task;
• The flight phase:
− departure, enroute, terminal area or approach-and-landing; and,
• The time available:
− normal selection or entry; or,
− last-minute change.
The correct level of automation often is the one the pilot feels the most comfortable with, depending on his/her knowledge and experience of the aircraft and systems, skills and confidence.
Reversion to hand-flying and manual thrust-control may be the "correct level of automation", for the prevailing conditions.
my bolding

[teresa green]

And we come back to the time honored way every time. Work with what you have, forget about what you have lost, and if you have had the basics hammered into your head from day one of your flying career, chances are you will get the bus on the ground. In my career, I had loss of nose wheel HBA/MEL, lost a donk on TO full pax, full fuel, and a freckin roman candle coming out of the left donk out of CBR, and God only knows how many other little set backs that buggered up my day, and each time was blessed with a competent F/O and flighty, a competent experienced flight deck, that handled both possible disasters, with training and experience. All former bush pilots, GA pilots, the training showed. I might add these experienced hero's made their way to the nearest pub, after all the stress, and got totally pissed, but hey we deserved it!

[Chimbu chuckles]

virginexcess is spot on - I am sad to say.

Capn Bloggs while your operation around the western GAFA provides ample opportunity to fly manually and maintain skills that is not true of MOST jet operations worldwide. For instance where are the opportunities for the crews operating between HKG and LHR or SIN and FRA or DXB and LA or NY and Paris?

I came to believe just after I started to fly for my first airline (after nearly 7000hrs in GA) that if you don't 'learn to fly' (have well ingrained basic skills) BEFORE you get in an airline jet you NEVER will - and that first airline jet for me was an F28 where we still DID hand fly a lot.

I have seen no evidence in the 17 odd years since that suggests that is, on balance, not the case.

At recent sim recurrent we were told in the brief that the grading emphasis in our airline had shifted from manual skills to NOTECHS - Non Technical Skills.

For those unschooled in NOTECHS there are 4 categories;

* Co-operation
* Leadership and Managerial Skills
* Situational Awareness
* Decision Making

Within each category there are 'elements' such as, with SA, 'awareness of aircraft systems/external environment/time'

All very good and clever - BUT,

NOTECHS assumes good communication skills (in English) and good basic technical skills are a given - which are two pretty unrealistic assumptions to make. Even if they're at a high level in a given airline NOW if you remove the emphasis eventually they won't be - its just human nature.

Less and less do airline management pilots have a background in GA/MIL these days and those that don't TRULY don't see much value in the hand flying skill set in modern aircraft like the 777 - which is too clever by half IMO. Too, in many airlines (especially 3rd world airlines), if a high standard of manual skills WAS required their cadetship schemes would be decimated and they would have to bid on the open market for that % of pilots who do have good skills and/or put very significant resources into training.

Can't have that - it would cost us a fortune - plus we already spend a fortune on Airbus and Boeing so they can give us idiot proof aeroplanes :hmm:

So we have a sort of downwards conflict spiral between airline CEO/beancounters - airline management pilots - aircraft manufacturers.

Array those 3 groups around a circle.

Airline CEOs/etc (except QF apparently) want more pax which means more aircraft which means more crews.

Management pilots are told X new aircraft are arriving in Y time frame - crew them! If they want to stay in management they do.

A/B want idiots to stop crashing their product which causes them much grief.

When A/B design a new idiot proof aeroplane that allows the airlines to go searching for a better class of idiot...and so the conflict spiral continues.

In the middle of the circle is this :ooh::confused: which is/should be the internationally recognised symbol of regulatory agencies:E

The answer of better/higher standards is politically and practically impossible worldwide - so we will see cleverer/more idiot proof aeroplanes chasing after a better class of idiot until pilotless aircraft become a reality - then we will see LOTS of crashes/people killed when its found (shock horror:hmm: ) that as flawed as a well trained, highly skilled human is - he/she is a damn site better than a computer incapable of feeling fear talking to a pimply faced computer geek in a trailer 8000nm away over a data link designed and produced by the lowest cost bidder.

Its all just human nature:(

[Normasars]

Bravo Chimbu.

The best post I have read on here for a long time.:ok:

Well said Sir.

[teresa green]

And today the skipper of the A380 confirmed what most have said. Good training in the early days be it service or self taught GA, work with what you have got, worry not with what you have lost. Fly the Aircraft NBR 1. Go back to the very basics if need be that your flying instructor instilled in your head. It is still only a aeroplane remember that, and can be flown without all the bells and whistles ( though not as easy) AND as Richard stated today in the Australian weekend Magazine, never totally trust the bastards, never. I have never forgotten meeting Capt Lester Brain, and the great man saying to me, Son, don't be surprised if they don't take off, be surprised that they do. I hope there are young pilots reading this thread, and I hope they realise that they need to keep honing their flying skills, I suggest you spend a bit of money, hire a lighty and reconnect to just that, it will be worth every cent.

[dogcharlietree]

There is a helluva difference between an AVIATOR (remember that old term) and a pilot (who now days is a systems operator).
Unfortunately, it is a sign of the times that aviator's are a dying breed.
I could mention a good book, "Fate Is The Hunter", which summed up a few examples of an aviator's thinking.
'Nuff said...I will reminisce my tail-dragger days with a big smile. ;)
ps..great thread.

[Tee Emm]

Examples of when you have lost the enthusiasm that we all had when we began to learn to fly.
On descent on a lovely day into Melbourne winds L&V.

"Do you mind if I switch off the flight director and hand fly for a bit"?
"Whatever for? - you are only making it hard for yourself and load me up as well"
Jeez Jack - its CAVOK and I've got a sim check coming up -I need the practice.
No son - leave the autopilot in. It's safer that way.
Well can I switch to HSI mode on my side?
Whatever for - are you mad or something? - leave it on MAP for better situational awareness, son.
Glum silence - then "Mind if I turn off the autobrake for my landing?"

"Whatever for?" Are you trying to bust every SOP?
No captain, I'm not. And autobrakes for every landing is not SOP, anyway. All I want to do is keep my hand in on manual flying like I did in GA and with 10,000 ft of runway I don't need the autobrake, anyway.

Alright son, I'll go you halves - you can turn off the autopilot on short final and I'll have the autobrake on three. Leave the flight director on in case of a go-around though.
"Three for Christ's sake- WTF do you want autobrake three for - the brakes will get hot" Anyway we don't need the flight director for a go-around".

"In my aircraft son, you use the flight director at all times and as far as hot brakes - well it never happens with autobrakes and anyway brakes are built to take heat didn'tcha know that. Now relax son, and watch your language. Just you do what I tell you and leave the flight director, the autopilot, the autothrottle, the autobrake, and the autospeed brakes to do their jobs and everything will be fine when you fly with me.
"But but but!"
"Don't effing argue with me son. Just fly the bloody aircraft.
"Yes captain Sir - that was what I was trying to do, but you won't let me.....

[Capn Bloggs]

For instance where are the opportunities for the crews operating between HKG and LHR or SIN and FRA or DXB and LA or NY and Paris?

Below 10,000ft on a nice sunny day would be a start. It doesn't matter that you're not doing a overfly circuit or just a ILS. It all helps. If that's too dangerous, then you really do have a problem in your operation.

As for the rest of your post, Chimbu, I think most of us know that. Some of us are saying let's make the effort. By at least raising the issue somebody's conscience might be pricked. A couple of prangs might also shake someone into reality.

[rivet head]

Anybody seen this,►
A380 Aborted Take off.VOB - YouTube

[Mr.Buzzy]

Storm in a teacup.

In my humble 15 years of multi-crew flying, not once have I heard a discouraging word when someone wanted to practice "hand-flying".

If anything, I have witnessed the total opposite.

"Nah mate, I don't build FMC circuits, I just turn all that :mad: off and fly it like a man."

When I hear those words, I sit up in my seat and review unusual attitude recovery in my mind! Have witnessed plenty of white knuckled, shiny lever, wrestling matches and usually at the end of a big day!

Why make it tough?

Pick your fights, good weather, light traffic, FO with ample brainspace..... click click.

[Joker89]

That belief is what scares the hell out of me. The reason why pilots should be perfectly confident of reverting to hand flying when the automatics are not behaving as expected, is that it is more efficient and far quicker to go Click Click and take immediate control than furiously going heads down poking buttons.


I disagree with this. The modern glass cockpit pilot must be a master of manipulating the FD/AP in all circumstances, especially when things are going off the rails. Disconnecting and hand flying is the easy option and in my opinion admits defeat.

There's nothing wrong with disconnecting and doing some pilot **** but it shouldn't be the first response when finding yourself in a "what's it doing now" moment.

[Arnold E]

but it shouldn't be the first response when finding yourself in a "what's it doing now" moment.

Are you joking there Joker??

[squarebear]

The autobrakes were selected earlier but after touchdown the speed brakes did not deploy and the reversers were not actuated. So the automatic brakes did not actuate. Still the penny had not dropped until the CVR heard "I got no brakes, man".

Bunch of serious handling/SOP issues....but the auto brake did not actuate because of those issues?

[Joker89]

but it shouldn't be the first response when finding yourself in a "what's it doing now" moment.

Are you joking there Joker??

No, HDG/ALT/VS even ROLL/PITCH are all more appropriate than causing a possible worse situation from developing by taking the automation out. There is of course a time where there is no other option but it shouldn't be the first solution. If you can't manage the modes you shouldn't be flying the jet.

[crystalballwannabe]

I'm with Arnold E

Going into CWS or VS can also be very confusing for the PM rather than just disengaging and hand flying.

Maybe we need to specify a phase of flight i.e. Cruise/Approach/Unusual attitude.

Im also a Boeing guy - maybe the opposite for the Bus - never flown one.

[Joker89]

Yeah that's fair enough. I don't believe there's a right or wrong answer, every situation is different. I've seen automation used when hand flying is the better option.

[Tee Emm]

I've seen automation used when hand flying is the better option.
Does your MEL permit dispatch with autopilot inoperative? if it does then you had better hope that at least one of the two pilots knows how to hand-fly on instruments..

[Zapatas Blood]

"Jeez Jack - its CAVOK and I've got a sim check coming up -I need the practice."

Statistically, there is more likely to be a significant event occur with a reduced level of automation selected by the crew (unless overtaken by another significant event)

The Jeez Jack comment highlights the absurdity of modern airline flying thinking. "lets enhance the opportunity for a screw up because I want to use the real aeroplane to practice for a sim session".

Crazy.

[teresa green]

How right you are Zapatas, in my era, flying the aircraft was part of your training, your work, your learning, and your pleasure. I could always marvel that I got paid for doing something I loved so much. Now you are not allowed to touch the bloody thing, but still expected to get it out of trouble, when all the bells and whistles fail. Go figure. It is very interesting to read the QF Skippers account of his feelings after it all happened. My biggest could be disaster was the DC9 incident out of CBR which is documented. My F/O and myself, and a paxing Flighty got seriously pissed afterwards, along with a shaken cabin crew, and I guess that was our way of dealing with it, and I note the QF crew did exactly the same. Then you have to be prepared for the fallout afterwards. At first elation, then relief, then self doubt, followed by the fact that you had just faced your own mortality, and you look at your family and be grateful. I did not need professional help, and was given a fortnight off, but was glad to return to flying, with a new respect for the DC9 and its capacity to get itself out of trouble, with full fuel, full pax, and one donk that pulled like a Trojan, and as most of you know the terrain around CBR it bloody well needed to. I still think about it at times, it kept me awake for some time, considering it was not simply a engine failure due to tyre ingestion, but I was carrying the Treasurer (Keating) and most of the front bench of the Govt that night, had I pranged it would have changed this countries history, and I would have left my wife and my family to have that on their shoulders for ever more.

[Gnadenburg]

I disagree with this. The modern glass cockpit pilot must be a master of manipulating the FD/AP in all circumstances, especially when things are going off the rails. Disconnecting and hand flying is the easy option and in my opinion admits defeat.

There's nothing wrong with disconnecting and doing some pilot **** but it shouldn't be the first response when finding yourself in a "what's it doing now" moment.

I have always preferred the easiest, safest and most efficient option. And sometimes this requires the confident disconnection of the automatics, put the aircraft where it needs to be more quickly than the automatics allow, then re-insate the automatics.

A good Airbus example being a glide slope intercept from above, in a higher than normal energy state due whatever reason ( ATC or environmental ). It was previously simple to do it without the automatics and it is more limiting doing it with them. Fine, the new generation want a solution using the automatics. It has opened up a can of worms, with the automatic solution creating task saturation and the aircraft ending up in an undesired state on occasion. And the added risk that this task saturation with automatics, sees a tendency for raw data to be ignored, and the aircraft sails through the glideslope...

Unbelievable! The best solution is a pilot who is fully aware of the Flight Director limitations, a pilot who is confident in hand flying the aircraft, a pilot who never trusts the automation and monitors raw data. This delivers a pilot who will make the best choice under the circumstances. More often than not, he will use the automatics, but when airmanship dictates, a manual set up may be more desirable.

I am now realizing how lucky I was to be trained during the evolution of the glass cockpit jets. We were trained in the basics and built up the levels of supporting automation. The foundation of this training was always scanning and backing up with raw data. Yes, this is supposed to happen with the newer generation, but often they are task saturated with the automatics and cumbersome SOP's, that seem to complicate and blur scenarios where airmanship would deliver a common sense outcome.

Is this our problem? Pilots now live in fear of flying without the automatics or their SOP's limit their ability to do so. During uncommon events like a intermediate go around and a restrictive altitude, they encounter a startle factor as the SOP's haven't provided a solution and the limitations of the automatics are not understood or are unexplored. In this scenario, there is a chance the crew will just land long due a lack of confidence in doing a non-standard GA, or a 90% chance the GA maneuver is disorderly, due an inability to confidently manage the aircraft where the automatics may not deliver the best solution.

[Joker89]

Gburg

I agree with everything you said. My post was in response to a statement regarding "just disconnect when it's not working etc"

[Centaurus]

Pilots now live in fear of flying without the automatics or their SOP's limit their ability to do so

This subject has gone around and around and will continue to do so. While I appreciate those that actually post their views on Pprune are in a tiny minority v those who browse Pprune, nevertheless, the above quote is probably closer to the truth for the silent majority of Pprune readers.

[Wally Mk2]

We are now so entrenched in such high levels of automation that it's too late to turn back time & actually fly a plane using skills long since lost.
The A/C of today are simply not designed to be manipulated manually other than in a basic fashion by a human purely in the interest of safety, that word that is used to protect & serve to avoid the crazy litigious world we now live in!

We still have A/C made of the same stuff,primarily aluminum etc: the speeds of yesterdays machines & today's haven't changed BUT the guy behind the steering wheel is changing or evolving & not for the best either in my opinion.

ALL the A/C manufacturers are now fully geared up to produce even more automation & this is the selling point of modern hardware in the future,not the need for or installation of experienced pilots from days gone by, they/us/we oldies are a dieing breed & will soon be 'bred' out of the cockpit altogether.

Soon in the not too distant future there won't be a single pilot around flying who has raw flying experience, system operators only will prevail up front in rows 1A&B to protect & serve!.

Some old retired pilots would have sat upon their verandah's watching aviation change many years ago right before their eyes to what we have today, but that same scene is being played out again.

[Arnold E]

The A/C of today are simply not designed to be manipulated manually other than in a basic fashion by a human purely in the interest of safety

IF that is the case, then I see no need for the pilot at all, and so total auto pilotless aircraft are the future,.........but not for me.

[Chimbu chuckles]

The A/C of today are simply not designed to be manipulated manually other than in a basic fashion by a human purely in the interest of safety,

That may be true of Brand A Wally but not so of Brand B. The 777 is a delightful aeroplane to hand fly, with or without A/T.

I have flown the 787 level D sim and it is likewise delightful.

This is not about whether they can be hand flown its about whether you're allowed to and to want extent you SHOULD.

Bloggs suggested we could get all the hand flying practice we need in wide bodies flying between HKG-LHR etc etc below 10000' on nice sunny days - clearly he has never flown out of HKG or into LHR.:E

Certainly where I am based its the easiest thing in the world to hand fly below 10000' on arrival or departure and some of us do. Its not appropriate at places like HKG,LHR,DXB etc...its just too bloody busy...and after you have stared out at the DXB/LHR/FRA sky through 'two piss holes in the snow' a few times on arrival you soon realise that the trainers were telling the truth during the initial line training when they said you wouldn't necessarily be in any fit condition to hand fly after the 8,10 or 12 hours spent getting there.

I am not even convinced that lack of raw hand flying skills is the greatest challenge our profession faces.

[ejectx3]

I hand fly the maggot regularly , and really enjoy it.

[Lookleft]

Of course they are designed to be flown manually. Not a lot has changed in layout since Orville took off. What has changed is the mentality that aircraft are too dangerous to fly manually. SOPs and outsourcing of training has made sure of that.

[By George]

A few people here still don't get it. Of course you can hand fly but with most companies SOP's it loads up the non-flying pilot to the detriment of his primary role of monitoring and cross-checking. MCP selection to support a PF manually flying can get very busy at times. The aircraft are designed for auto-pilot use to allow greater situational awarness, allowance for fatique etc. Not to mention giving the support pilot a free hand to cross check everything.

By all means keep hand-flying skills up, but only when the weather is good, traffic is light and brain is not fatigued.

The thought of some goose hand-flying the Lamborne hold and arrival into EGLL during peak hour traffic is mind-boggling.

[Centaurus]

it loads up the non-flying pilot to the detriment of his primary role of monitoring and cross-checking.

Primary role of monitoring and cross-checking? I thought one of the main problems with long haul flying was the mind-numbing boredom of automation with its monitoring and cross-checking. Surely anyone with a set of eyes and a brain can monitor a few instruments. You can't have it both ways, you know,:ok: Reminds me of the time I was flying a 737 in perfect conditions somewhere over Europe and decided to hand fly at high altitide and follow the VOR tracks on the flight plan.

I told the 300 hour cadet first officer of my intentions to switch off the FD, AP and AT and fly by hand. He sat bolt upright and was all panicked attention and then I nearly wet myself with laughter when he said he had better don his shoulder harness if I was going to hand fly. Clearly he was seriously frightened!

[Howard Hughes]

What a great thread, keep it up guys!

As someone who has only experienced the magic boxes in the last six months, I must admit that if I have a 'what's it doing now moment' I revert straight to raw data, because that's what I know. Gee it must be nice though to have a second pair of hands to sort the automatics, while you're wrestling with the Airplane*.;)

* Spelling deliberate, after all it is from Wichita...:}

[Capn Bloggs]

HH, Flying machines from Wichita are not "airplanes", they're bugsmashers. :}

[Howard Hughes]

Capn Bloggs, aren't they all? It's just the speed and number of bugs that varies!;)

[Gnadenburg]

A few people here still don't get it. Of course you can hand fly but with most companies SOP's it loads up the non-flying pilot to the detriment of his primary role of monitoring and cross-checking.

One of the reasons I believe in raw data type proficiency, is that this "loading up" you refer to is a skill in itself. I suppose it's called "support".

If a support pilot struggles and his capacity is sapped in this role, how will he perform if I have a multiple failure where automation is degraded?

I am expected, as an airline pilot, to perform and put the aircraft safely on the ground when faced with all the multi-failure scenarios. Raw data proficiency in suitable conditions, keeps me honed not only in elemental flying skills, but also in other areas of flight deck performance. For example, it is a skill in itself to not load up your support pilot and to run checklists at suitable times and to manage the workload appropriately.

If I have double hydraulics failure or fly in emergency configuration for example, I need the high levels of capacity to hand fly the aeroplane and manage what could be a MPL/300 hour cadet who's hands will be trying to go everywhere. The outfit I fly with has had two self induced double hydraulic failures due poor flight deck coordination.

A raw data approach every month is enough for me to maintain some of these important skills!

I like this story from early days. New F/O comes whistling around the corner in an A320 at Epping. Weather fluctuating about the minima. Autopilot off, flight directors off, autothrust off.....raw data approach.

Old Captain leans over and re-instates the automatics and the aircraft flys a coupled approach and lands from the minima. On the ground Capt asks the F/O WTF were you doing? F/O explains that in the RAAF they were told to do their raw data flying when they were tired and the weather the worst, to heighten the training value!

I would expect we all realize the inappropriateness of the above; that's what the simulators are for. Hand flying on the line should be a normal currency. Sadly, the big deal that's been made of it, has the new generation terrified of hand flying and they are some of the quickest draws in getting that autopilot in straight after T/O.

[amos2]

Is this thread for real!? :sad::sad::sad:

[Centaurus]

Is this thread for real!?



Great article, thanks.

Re the worldwide pervasive over use and reliance on automation this is well worth a look by all pilots airline training departments and managements.

This talk was given at American Airlines training centre in 1997.
How much worse have things gotten in this regard since then??? How many accidents??

Children of Magenta, well worth 25min of your time.

A few discerning readers seem to think so, Amos:ok:

[amos2]

I'm not really interested in discerning readers. I'm more interested in the guys in the LHS who are supposed to be running the show! :(:(:(

[PPRuNeUser0190]

I don't understand why PM's get overloaded when the automatics are off. You have one system less that you have to monitor :)

If you feel that you need to monitor the flight parameters more than you need to with automatics engaged, then you have too much confidence in the automatics.

[Carjockey]

@teresa green (http://www.pprune.org/members/197319-teresa-green)

At first elation, then relief, then self doubt, followed by the fact that you had just faced your own mortality, and you look at your family and be grateful.


A simple question; how do you imagine the pax feel during an incident like this? I and my family experienced an in flight situation on an ME based airline which was most certainly not normal, and this was not helped by the lack of information / reassurance from the pointy end.

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/369326-doh-kul.html

To this day I can imagine the PNF sleeping in his left seat, whilst the PF (an individual from the sub-continent) tried to work up the courage to decide whether to:

1.Wake up the PNF and ask him what he should do.

2.Try to figure out which buttons he should press to correct the situation.

Apparently he did neither, because we rocked and rolled all over the sky intermitently until we reached KUL.

Not a very pleasant or confidence buliding experience I can assure you.

Automation is fine, but it should not be regarded as a substitute for human skill and intuition, which no machine or computer can ever adequately replicate.

[Reinhardt]

And maybe airlines pilots* could stop making a fool of new recruits, coming from Air Forces where they flew fighters, trainers, liaison aircraft, did in flight-refuelling, air combat, close formation take-off and landings, air displays, short-field landings with NVG, low level tactical navigations, para droppings, carrier landings (and even ILS auto)
From my own memory and colleagues experience, airline pilots are always very good in explaining to you how it was to fly fighters, when they don't have the slightest clue about the job... which doesn't prevent them to consider you are not fit for the job of flying crates from A to B on autopilot... (I'm now a wide-body Captain, for info - and I have done years ago barrel rolls with transport aircraft, yes not difficult it's exactly like a barrel roll in fighters with a wingman in close formation .... so much for handling skills)
So the solution is : recruit more ex-fighter pilots, who got through a real selection, and didn't pay for their job.
I fortunately have a lot of very proficient colleagues in the airlines, of all origins.

(*) by airline pilots, I mean those systems monitoring officers and button-pushers who are the subject of this topic.

[Organfreak]

@virginexcess:
Training and recurrent proficiency are a cost to the airline and affect somebody's KPI's. Until the accident rate climbs to a level that the bean counters find unacceptable, they won't throw one extra dollar at it.

That's demonstrably false, since training is already changing, as reported by some pilots here.

[goeasy]

A brilliant discussion. So many opinions. Just what pprune should be about.
Yes Amos this is for real. Very real.

What hasn't been mentioned here much is the lawyers rather than the accountants. As I see it as PIC, is that every time you remove automatics without reason, on a revenue flight, just to 'practice' your skills, you leave yourself wide open to criticism/blame.

If something does go wrong, even just an FDM event, you have to be able to justify removing a layer of safety. How do you answer, when the insurance lawyer asks you why you went against the manufacturer, and airlines advice to use the automation as much as possible? It seems to be in all FCOMS and OMs I have seen.

Fatigue/tiredness is the biggest problem today in airlines. They know it, hence the instruction to maximise automation. It's not ideal, but it's what we have to live with.

The simulator should be used to practice for line flying, not the other way around!

[Gnadenburg]

And maybe airlines pilots* could stop making a fool of new recruits, coming from Air Forces where they flew fighters, trainers, liaison aircraft, did in flight-refuelling, air combat, close formation take-off and landings, air displays, short-field landings with NVG, low level tactical navigations, para droppings, carrier landings (and even ILS auto)
From my own memory and colleagues experience, airline pilots are always very good in explaining to you how it was to fly fighters, when they don't have the slightest clue about the job... which doesn't prevent them to consider you are not fit for the job of flying crates from A to B on autopilot... (I'm now a wide-body Captain, for info - and I have done years ago barrel rolls with transport aircraft, yes not difficult it's exactly like a barrel roll in fighters with a wingman in close formation .... so much for handling skills)
So the solution is : recruit more ex-fighter pilots, who got through a real selection, and didn't pay for their job.
I fortunately have a lot of very proficient colleagues in the airlines, of all origins.

(*) by airline pilots, I mean those systems monitoring officers and button-pushers who are the subject of this topic.

The most absurd posting in this thread. Just what the airlines need, Major Bob Hollands at the controls....

I've found a number of ex-fighter pilots to be average to sometimes dangerous as airline pilots. Especially if they are from non-Western air forces.

That said, some are very gifted and stand-outs.

[flyboy410]

I believe that most of us, if not all, will agree that the airplane must be flown first. It's an age old saying being passed on by flight instructors for decades: Aviate, Navigate then Communicate. The power of simplicity...if only it could be easily perceived.

Fighter pilots do have a tendency to 'drive' planes more than flying them which is why some find their flying style with airliners a little reckless. There's a stark weight and maneuverability difference between a fighter and an airliner! But I think the boys from the transporter/heavy-lift category might be good with civilian jets.

There are pilots to let the AP handle things after 400 feet and there are some who take it by hand up to the first level portion of the DP or until they're in a stable climb. Usually, the latter are the better pilots qualitatively.

[Heathrow Harry]

I know it's hard to admit but automation has made revenue flying much, much safer

I hate to think what would happen if , by some wave of the magic wand, we were taken back 30 years................

just look at the stats

Of course we now suffer different accidents but (especially given the massive rise in route kms) we suffer fewer accidents

if you still want to hand fly go out and buy a share in a light plane

[Capn Bloggs]

Harry, that's silly. Nobody's suggesting we go back 30 years. And GPWS has probably had the most impact on reducing accident rates, combined with database approaches. However your suggestion that we do not address one of the last remaining and now major cause of accidents, LOC (because of incompetent hand-flying), is sticking your head in the sand.

[Vander]

Reading this thread I am really glad I managed to get hired by the company I'm with right now.

I'm as rookie as rookies can get, sporting about 150 hours on the 320 just now.

AP off / ATHR off / FD off is SOP and the FD will only come on if the Wx is really bad or you are feeling unfit.

And too be honest I'm still feeling a bit paranoid about losing skill because I'm not flying full procedures / manual holdings like back at school. I can't imagine how insecure I'd feel if I'd have to d/c the AP in short final every approach...

[deSitter]

How hard is the redesign to tactically couple the side sticks? That *has* to be done. The entire DC-10 fleet was grounded after AA191. In my opinion the decoupled controls are a fundamental design flaw as dangerous as bunched hydraulic systems, and more likely to make itself felt in an emergency when both pilots are pumped and fighting for their very human lives.

[deSitter]

TM quote


The captain then applied full manual braking and reverse thrust was engaged with 1,500 ft of runway remaining - an action which automatically deployed the speed brakes. The aircraft left the runway and rolled 200 ft into grass. None of the 139 passengers and crew members were injured in the 26 April 2011 incident.

What is the solution to this type of crass bad airmanship? Because in all probability it is not just an isolated incident. Some would recommend more still automation. Others may see it differently. It's impossible to be rid of this behavior. People who use computers in all contexts will simply sit and stare or fumble about when trouble comes, even experts, even the very people who are in charge of operating them. I have seen programmers stare at the screen for minutes pondering the unexpected behavior of their own work. The man/computer interface involving button pushing and knob twiddling is not suitable for a high demand activity such as handling an emergency.

IMO the entire thing should be reduced to a few instantly accessible modes 1) leave me alone I'm flying this airplane 2) help me out a little here 3) I'll help you out here 4) you fly, I'm taking a rest 5) TOGA 6) autoland. Thrust, trim, and controls should all replicate the time-honored and physically debugged act of manual flying at all times.

This does not mean the computer cannot be active in a smoothing sense even when 1) is selected. No efficiency would be lost. The beanies would be mollified. The computer could also act in an advisory capacity, suggesting optimal performance configuration in manual mode. But the real issue is the interface.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_ErZ1nakd0

[SFI145]

I am a great believer in pilots being able to hand fly and this is what I do with guys once they get comfortable with jet ( about 200hrs) I then introduce raw data, ILS, then Flying vectors at night and then take the map modes off (all over a few months) most guys that fly with me can now fly raw data hand flown dme arcs to vor/ils arrivals all with just HSI! no map mode on at all and it seems to really widen their situational awareness as well.

All these guys are 200 hr guys initially and it can be taught but it needs captains who are willing to let guys do it as you may have to tell them to go around or take the controls back off of them. I have never set off the OFDM and have seen some pretty atrocious approaches but i would rather see them in a controlled enviroment than on a dark stormy night!!

If you can't fly a modern jet like it was piston twin should you really be in the seat anyway!
Well I hope your employer knows that you are using line flying for your private training method?

[Heathrow Harry]

I think DeSitter is right - seperately coupled sidesticks should be a no-no -

[320wonder]

how many commanders will let their FO hand fly from T/O to at least 10,000ft , and from 10,000ft to Landing? (raw data, without the FDs, Without APs, And Manual Thrust? )

and how many of you guys actually notices the thrust setting during cruise for a particular speed and weight? most guys just make sure the speed doesn't go too fast or too slow. If something like AF447 were to happen again, and the pilots instantly takes over control and maintain S&L, does he know what trust setting to set for that particular weight? (oh yeah, i know WHAT to do, but HOW to do it?

many of the commanders are in their comfort zone, and are not willing to let the other guy screw up their DAY by having to G/A because of unstabilized approaches, or some other screw ups.

one days, these FO will be a commander, and they TOO won't let their FO hand fly because they themselves lacked the confidence.

the training department of Aircraft Manufacturers and Airlines worldwide should take action and change this.

It started with Airbus, now Boeing is going into that direction too.

[Craggenmore]

My airline rosters 2 manual handling sims per year as well as the bi-annual PPC's etc.......

Does yours?

[Reinhardt]

Major Bob Hollands at the controls.... Who is that guy ?
..dangerous as airline pilots. Especially if they are from non-Western air forces So much contempt in those words... Listen young man, you can have quite proficient pilots with brown or yellow skins, but that engrained feeling of superiority is so common in your beer "culture"... And by the way, tell the americans about the "non western" Vietnamese fighter pilots in the 60s ...
some are very gifted and stand-outs Me too, I've met occasionally some good airline pilots...
Fighter pilots do have a tendency to 'drive' planes more than flying them One of the most ridiculous assertions I have ever read. If you had flown fighters, even once as a back-seater, you would know what is real flying. Sorry for you ... And after flying thousands of hours in a big cockpit trying not to fall asleep, I came to consider airlines hours a little bit suspiciously (remember, those guys log hours when on the ground, when going to the toilets ot talking to ladies in the galley, even when sleeping in the bunk...)
There's a stark weight and maneuverability difference between a fighter and an airliner! If you had flown Jaguars at high altitude, or taken off with some heavy-loaded beasts in the desert, you would moderate yourself...
there are some who take it by hand up ... until they're in a stable climb. Usually, the latter are the better pilots qualitatively Wouah, really, manual flying up to circa 4000 ft AGL, keeping the FD cross bars centered. What an adventure... (in fact I've seen airlines colleagues doing that, and figuring themselves as a sort of Chuck Yeager just after it. Movies should be made of this material)
Every time we meet between ex-fighter pilots, disregarding nationalities, we always agree about the poor level of handling skills and lack of aerodynamic background so common with the "pure civilian" pilots, who paid for their training and have been therefore instructed a minima. Now it seems those people are comforting themselves by talking about more miserable than themselves...

[John Boeman]

Here we go again......

Every time we meet between ex-fighter pilots, disregarding nationalities, we always agree about the poor level of handling skills and lack of aerodynamic background so common with the "pure civilian" pilots, who paid for their training and have been therefore instructed a minima...

I preferred the post from the ex-mil gent who pointed the obvious - even the most skilled ex-fast jet jockey will lose a lot (if not most) of his handling skills if he doesn't practise them regularly.

Wasn't that what this thread was about...?

[A37575]

Is all the sim two hours manual by PF or just part of it

[Microburst2002]

In my opinion, with actual technology there should be a way to fly an airplane halfway between manually and using automation. By manually I mean zero automation, and I am not referring to the FD bars.

This "hybrid" way of flying would be such that the pilot would have to to the thinking and to have controls like in a Cessna, but the system would warn the pilot and come up to assist when it was departing the intended flight path or getting close to envelope limits.

Imagine that you want to fly an ILS and instead of the AP/FD A/THR, you use the "HYBRID" mode, in which the AP/FD approach mode is standing by. If you are rusty or that day is not your day, or you are a 200 hr trainee with a lot to learn and you go too far off the beam, then the bars come up. The procedure is that if they come up, you follow the bars, engage A/THR and even engage AP depending on circumstances.

WIth such a system, pilots would remain highly skilled and we would still benefit from the increased safety that we owe to automation.

And we would have so much more fun!

[clouddancer77]

Excellent and well written ! I was discussing this accident with my brother who is a Delta Captain flying the A-330 in an attempt to understand why the crew did not revert to flying AOA. I have flown corporate Gulfstream models for the past 35 years which come standard with "normalized" AOA presentation and was shocked to learn that Airbus does not provide AOA status to the crew.

The Gulfstream-550 incorporates a procedure in the QRH that addresses the exact scenario faced by the AF crew by pitching to an AOA range (percent of lift used) of 0.30 to 0.50 for clean configuration to fly straight and level. We also have the advantage of HUD providing a zero pitch line which can be aligned with the FD FPA symbol.

Is there a logical rationale for not having AOA information available in all swept wing aircraft?

[eppy]

Kudos to Chimbu and VirginExcess - they have nailed it.

The reality is that the problem is commercial problem as much as a technical problem. Automation has been a commercial necessity in the IT and Utility (Power, gas, electricity) industries for decadeds. It is now a commercial necessity in aviation. The way forward is to accept the fact that pilots are now dependent on automation as their employers can no longer afford to keep the hand flying skills current.

As such, any reduction in automation due to unreliable airspeed or any other criterion should have a mandated gradual reduction in automation based on the computer's best estimates from the remaining reliable telemetry. What is no longer acceptable is the sudden "I give up" programming to hand over full manual control to pilots in an instant, as what happened with AF447.

It is no longer economical to train pilots to hand fly in such situations - the automation response must be gradual and very unabiguous to enable pilots to adjust to a fully automatic to semi-automatic flying mode. Just giving up and expecting hand flying skills is no longer on the cards.

[Phantom Driver]

JB


I preferred the post from the ex-mil gent who pointed the obvious - even the most skilled ex-fast jet jockey will lose a lot (if not most) of his handling skills if he doesn't practise them regularly.

Wasn't that what this thread was about...?


Yes indeed; have often quoted my old favorite-"the older I get, the better I was".

Have also argued many times on this forum, that manual flying todays airliners in the current RVSM/RNP/RNAV crowded airspace is not really a good idea, not to mention the fact that these machines are not designed to be flown manually the way that we used to know; there is too much FMS/MCP manipulation needed by someone or other, coupled with ATC RT and/or config changes by PM/(PNF) to make it an effective cross-monitoring operation, which is why both Mr Boeing and Mr Airbus want you to make full use of automation for a safe operation and also a smooth ride for the punters down the back.

I have also argued many times that we should be protecting our flying skills by doing more raw data exercises in the sim, rather than wasting time on these "politically correct" LOFT scenarios. Why would I want to spend one hour of LPC time doing low vis taxi at AMS and full deicing procedures before take-off?!. Then they try to cram so many scenarios in (at strange, complicated airfields) that you come out wondering what on earth you learned here; no time to review fine details and most obscure but potentially important points forgotten as soon as you walk out the door with a successful pass and a good "score".

It's called "Information Overload". However, thankfully the trend seems to be going away from this particular mindset, with a new breed in training, although still a way to go.If they want to check my knowledge of automation systems, then incorporate some Fixed Base training time, and leave the full flight sim for something more useful.

I know all these points have been covered ad infinitum by previous contributors on this and other threads, but I have to ask myself-why do we forever keep on reinventing the old wheel?

Another favorite quote (Samuel Johnston?)- "Man has oft more need to be reminded than informed", and I've lost count of how many times I've posted that hoary old one on this forum:sad: Without any doubt, we'll all be repeating ourselves a hundred or more posts down the line....

[sAx_R54]

...and a :mad: roman candle coming out of the left donk out of CBR

*Classic!* :D Reminds me of TFBNDY from med school!

[Gnadenburg]

So much contempt in those words... Listen young man, you can have quite proficient pilots with brown or yellow skins, but that engrained feeling of superiority is so common in your beer "culture"... And by the way, tell the americans about the "non western" Vietnamese fighter pilots in the 60s ...

Reinhardt

This is an interesting and important thread that highlights industry deficiencies. Your first post was absurd in content and you've followed up with consistency and the introduction of personal abuse.

I'm happy to take this offline and spare others the slanging match but first.....

Major Holland killed his B52 crew in sadly spectacular fashion. His hazardous attitude has a similarity to yours in your opening post. Where you seem to think that because you have barrel rolled a probably non-aerobatic certified transport aircraft, the solution to the airline industry of diminishing hand flying skills, would be to just unashamedly recruit more military pilots.

I stand by my comments.The last thing the industry needs is to recruit Maj Bob Hollands types.

When you opened up with listen young man I thought what an idiot. You then displayed a poor understanding of the argument by playing the race card where it had no reason to be played. There is a significant ideological difference between the training of the Western and non-Western fighter pilots that seems to have manifested itself in difficulty transitioning to an airline environment. Indeed, in the seventies, some Warsaw Pact countries had expensive, government funded civilian flying academies to address safety problems associated with using ex-mil crews in their state owned airlines.

The Vietnamese air force analogy was a poor one. Yes, a small number were successful against Americans who were severely restricted by their ROE. Vietnamese ( possibly Russian and North Korean ) pilots used guerilla warfare hit and run tactics that initially worked against Washington controlled fighter bomber formations. If the Americans were permitted to bomb the radar stations and command and control facilities that so successfully positioned Migs into advantageous positions, their initial successes may not have occurred.

I digress. Quite simply, most pilots from a non-Western background in military aircraft are start again candidates. Their training and culture are vastly different to what transitions comfortably to an airline cockpit.

You move on and have a crack at others who argue the handling differences between a fighter and an airliner. This needn't worry you because you tell us you flew Jaguars in the desert and at "high altitude"; I can tell you it worried Airbus and Boeing enough in their mid 90's push to have airlines introduce upset training, where they were concerned not only with poor civilian experience levels in aerobatics or extreme attitudes, but also with ex- military crews who may use inappropriate recovery techniques with airliners.

If you want to abuse me because of my culture I would be thrilled to continue this offline via PM- especially as you seem to be French and my grandfathers fought your wars for you cleaning up your collaborators in the Middle East.

Or, we can continue here and add to the debate on an important air safety issue.

[Easy Street]

Those of you who have been knocking ex-military pilots - it would appear that the CAA agree with you! The revised CAP804 has just removed all military exemptions for skill tests - which, in the most ridiculous and extreme example, means that an A1 Tutor QFI/IRE with thousands of hours' instructional time has to take a skills test just to get a PPL! Yes, a PPL! Crazy - and more than a little insulting.

Even to me (as a current military man) it says that the CAA do not trust the military training output, or worse, the military do not trust themselves (the revised document was based on a submission from the RAF). Should we be allowed into controlled airspace at all if our training really doesn't qualify us for even a PPL? :mad:

[Gnadenburg]

I don't think anyone here is knocking military pilots. I question the assumption that if you are ex-mil you will automatically make a good airline pilot. It's just not the case.

[White Knight]

Sheppey, at what stage was this offered by the Captain?

If this had been a discussion prior to the top of descent, then a mental model could have been shared, and agreement had on how the visual approach would be fine.

Despite there probably being a nice diagram in the QRH, a sharing of each pilots understanding of how the approach would be flown, at what config, at what point, and how any go-around would be flown would go a long way to ensuring a safe outcome.



SERIOUSLY????????????????

What the hell happened to FLYING the aeroplane????????????

[homerj]

Well , I regularly fly with 4 ex mil FOs in my base and they all failed the upgrade on the first attempt and they were arrogant , over confident, had poor interpersonal skills , 2 of them had poor hygiene , and they all had issues with authority. I would love to have had a chance to operate a fast jet or any high performance military
aircraft and I think the experience you can get is excellent but as I said form what I have seen , more often than not they're just annoying to fly with Lack of humility and an inability to hold their hands up when they make a mistake is also an issue. Just an observation !

[dlcmdrx]

Skywest - Page 119 - Airline Pilot Central Forums (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/60537-skywest-119.html)

[iceman50]

Easy Street

My take would be the conspiracy theory that the Powers to be in the RAF have pulled a political move. They want to make it more difficult for the military pilot to leave and fly in the civillain world.

[sabenaboy]

I've been reading through this thread with interest and amazement.
I'm absolutely flabagasted by some of the comments I have come across:As far as being able to grab the jet from the autopilot in IMC when everything is going pear shaped? I don't think so.What???? Are you serious? I'm sorry, but if you can't do that (anymore) you do not belong in a cockpit (anymore). An other “AF447” waiting to happen?Now days I am struggling to do a basic maneuver. I still do them from time to time, but only when well briefed with weather and traffic conditions permitting.What? Struggling to do a basic maneuver? What do you mean? Are you struggling to fly a manual raw data ILS approach in bening weather? If the answer is yes... you do not belong in that cockpit!Gone are the days of immediately reverting to hand flying when the automatics are not behaving as expected, or at least they should be gone. ......Additionally, in most modern jets, any hand flying intervention should normally be limited to establishing stable flight and re-engaging the automaticsThe word "should" is the previous sentence makes me worry a lot! I say: if you ever find yourself in a situation where you think “what's it doing now”, there's absolutely nothing wrong with switching all automatics off and manually fly the plane the way you want it to. I would go even further: every airline pilot should be able to do just that before he's released on line!Again, the days of disconnecting and pointing at the runway are gone. At the very least you have to call for the appropriate mode so that you have flight director guidance.If you really need that flight director, once again you do not belong in that cockpit!Any in flight occurence that requires an autopilot disconnect is most likely going to pop up on the FDR. When/if it does the Captain will be sent a please explain. If he has continued flight without appropriate flight director guidance it is unlikely that he is going to be patted on the back and have his exemplary flying skill praised. More likely he is going to be sent to the sim for some more training on how to manage the automatics. Please let me know what company you fly for. Given a choice I would rather avoid such a company!
There is really no excuse for Airlines who forbid their pilots to keep their raw data handflying skills up to date.

Last year I started a thread in the tech log about “Your airlines' policy about the use of automation during flight?” (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/453212-your-airlines-policy-about-use-automation-during-flight.html) I invite you to read it. Will there be crashes as a result; you bet, but there will be a lot less than if you allowed these low hour pilots to hand fly jet aircraft around.The low-timers are not the problem, but the training departments are! 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 atis warns us about low clouds and moderate visibility or when flying into a busy airport we are not familiar with! It's not they are not smart enough to know that, it's just that they were so used to raw data flying during their training, that using the automatics for approach had become the exception, rather then the rule. :E

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.
If anything, I have witnessed the total opposite.
"Nah mate, I don't build FMC circuits, I just turn all that off and fly it like a man." When I hear those words, I sit up in my seat and review unusual attitude recovery in my mind! Have witnessed plenty of white knuckled, shiny lever, wrestling matches and usually at the end of a big day!
Why make it tough?
Pick your fights, good weather, light traffic, FO with ample brainspace..... click click. In our company nobody will build a FMC visual circuit! :ugh: Remember it's a visual circuit. I will use the timing on downwind leg like Mr Airbus says in the FCOM on the rare occasion where I can start the downwind at 1500' AGL and the other times I'll use brains and common sense to adapt the visual pattern in function of height and speed. It doesn't take a cowboy (believe me, I'm not) to do that and it isn't rocket science either. It just takes some practice and common sense! Aren't visual patterns something you learned since your very first flight hours?

Come on fellows: stop looking for excuses thinking it's ok not to be proficient in raw data manual flight as an airline pilot flying one of the modern Airbus or Boeing devices. I'm sure you can fly that A380 manually with just raw data once you're on the intercept heading for the ILS in LHR or SIN when the weather is nice enough! Or are you flying for one of those companies stopping their pilots to stay proficient, then please try to get that that policy changed. You owe it to the passengers!

Happy landings!

[Island-Flyer]

Regarding the automation issue: if you can't readily to hand fly an aircraft if needed within ATP tolerances you have no place in the cockpit. At my company due to the nature of our airspace and our approaches, as well as autoflight restrictions, many are hand flown with no flight director or a flight director used only for secondary reference. We've had a couple relatively high time jet pilots (5000+ hours, which is high for a turboprop operator) fail our training due to our emphasis on flying unique approaches using raw data or limited FD use.

Honestly in transport category turboprops a pilot can fly the aircraft smoother and more precisely than the autopilot. I found this is often the case on many older jet aircraft as well.

On the military issue, my company has a lot of military pilots and a lot of civilian pilots. I've found military to be no better or worse than civilians, though the high performance fighter pilots definitely seem to generally have more attitude and a notably authoritarian command style.

[Flygare]

Well said Sabenaboy, I agree!

I once flew Be1900´s in and out of Miami International, and I always flew manually. Some seem to consider that dangerous, but we had no choice, because there was no autopilot installed in any of the aircraft.

The more you practise, the easier and more precise it gets.
When disengaging the A/P and A/T, on intercept heading for an ILS, the pilot monitoring should monitor the same way as he should (but probably doesn´t) monitor the autopilot. The only addition to his normal duties, is setting the speed bug.

[sAx_R54]

...2 of them had poor hygiene...

Some relevance to manual precision flight without automation:confused:

[Microburst2002]

Hi Sabenaboy

I quote myself

In my opinion, with actual technology there should be a way to fly an airplane halfway between manually and using automation. By manually I mean zero automation, and I am not referring to the FD bars.

This "hybrid" way of flying would be such that the pilot would have to to the thinking and to have controls like in a Cessna, but the system would warn the pilot and come up to assist when it was departing the intended flight path or getting close to envelope limits.

Imagine that you want to fly an ILS and instead of the AP/FD A/THR, you use the "HYBRID" mode, in which the AP/FD approach mode is standing by. If you are rusty or that day is not your day, or you are a 200 hr trainee with a lot to learn and you go too far off the beam, then the bars come up. The procedure is that if they come up, you follow the bars, engage A/THR and even engage AP depending on circumstances.

WIth such a system, pilots would remain highly skilled and we would still benefit from the increased safety that we owe to automation.

And we would have so much more fun!

What do you think of this brilliant idea of mine? I am outraged that no one commented it! :rolleyes:

It could satisfy both the manufacturers, the operators, the pilots and the authorities, because automation would still be there, normally, and sometimes it would be there, although standing by.

It would be something like arming the FD. And even the A/THR. These would be activated only if required by the system

I find this idea very nice, mainly because I had it. But it has more and more good points the more I think about it. I like those systems that are complementary to the human being, rather than substitutes. TCAS and GPWS are such systems. They complement deficiencies of the human being, but they don't substitute us. We need safety nets, rather than delegating more and more in a system which in the end is also prone to failure, and that when it fails things will be complicated due to pilot atrophy.

I wish my airline had your policy, but it does not. It recommends highest use of automation, although it leaves a tiny chance for practice.

[DOVES]

I finally figured out ; my mood is “Bodhi”.
Thanks to a former colleague of mine (he was my co-pilot, and is now on AB330 FO) who told me: "You are an old pilot."
I became aware of my state: I am a Pterosaur.
Why scramble to teach how to prevent a stall, or how to come out of it?
Modern aircraft do not stall!
Why you should warn the students from spin, what makes it different from the spiral, the way to establish unequivocally the sense in which the aircraft is turning.
What use to teach drawing in the ether precise climb / descent at a constant rate simultaneously performing standard turns.
The automatics do it better.
And then to instruct how to imagine their position in space according to the indication of some Needle.
How to acquire and maintain a QDM or QDR, or to capture a radial, to what end?
Double drift in some holding entry, the triple in a certain leg to maintain it; dollar yes or dollar no!?. All this is best done by automation, and well-designed, in real-time on the screen of N. D. set on MAP.
Why warning: "dead foot: dead engine ..." or "foot chases ball…"
On modern aircraft yaw caused by engine failure is automatically corrected.
Why to check often during the descent that the distance remaining multplied 3 gives the actual altitude in order to avoid to arrive long and / or fast, for this there is the Vertical Nav.
Why to memorize attitudes and powers for (flight turbulence), for the initial, intermediate and final approach with all engines and with One Engine Inoperative and their corrections for weight, P.A and wind.
The A. T. maintains very well the speed needed for each and every occasion.
Why to point out that to maintain the glide rather than chasing the VSI, the secret is to make small changes to the attitude and power, that the locator displacement has not to be chased but prevented, by calculating and changing constantly and almost imperceptibly the heading according to the cross-wind component:
so even if we disconnect the A. P. there is the F / D, and then there is the Flight Path Vector, that will make those calculations before and better than us.
Why to do the Alt. Check & x-check at the FAF, FAP, we checked the FMS immediately after entering the STAR.
We can even build any type of instrument / visual approach and a circuit with PB, PBD or the coordinates of significant points to which we can associate altitude and speed.
Next step?
Guess what?

[LeftBlank]

Agree with Flygare. The more you practice, the easier it gets. The more familiar you are the less uncomfortable you feel when you have to think a bit more.At least with my Company we hand fly and practice raw data approaches as much as we like....not always because the automatics are so :mad: you have to....

The scary thing is in 30 years time new pilots will be amazed that we once had to keep the FD bars crossed using old fashioned control yokes and not a trackpad.

[DOVES]

LeftBlank
The scary thing is in 30 years time new pilots will be amazed that we once had to keep the FD bars crossed using old fashioned control yokes and not a trackpad.
In 30 years time?
In much less time there will be nobobody in the cockpit and the pilot will be sitting at home in front of his PC.

[costamaia]

@DOVES

Why do I keep teaching and practising hand sutures when 99% of them are (adequately, if not better) performed mechanically by a multitude of gadgets or a robot (an industry-driven "need")?
Because when the machine fails, you have to do it yourself, and you better know how! My patients, as your A/C ultimately still depend on our capability of hand-flying (or hand-suturing), no matter how complex and "reliable" automation is...
Maybe I'm a pterosaur too... But I feel I'm still usefull.

[DOVES]

costamaia
Obviously I was joking.
Even when and if I will be no longer allowed to teach to love my art to aspiring airline pilots I will continue to teach as I do now, on real planes "Light sport aircraft" piloted with the seat of the pants, stick, rudder and throttle, and without the intermediation of one or more computers.

[ExSp33db1rd]

In much less time there will be nobobody in the cockpit and the pilot will be sitting at home in front of his PC.


No, the pilot will still be sitting their - alongside a dog.

The pilot will be there to feed the dog, and the dog will be there to see that the pilot desn't touch anything.

[Cool Guys]

Some people on this thread attribute the lowing accident rate over the past decades at least partly to the use of automation. Does this mean we can expect the 737 to have more accidents than the 320 because it hasless automation?

[TheMellowLife]

I think automated flight controls are crucial nowadays, considering the sheer number of aircraft up there. But I do think there's a fine line between computers reducing workload and controlling so many flight parameters that the pilots can't practice their skills.

There's absolutely no mechanical connection between the stick and the surfaces on an airbus right? :hmm:

But automation probably makes ATC life a hell of a lot easier!

[Gretchenfrage]

I would like to recall a term that I miss in the conversation:

Automation induced pilot error.

There will always be human errors, but there will always be electronic failures.
There is a very well established statistic about pilot error in airline crashes, not surprisingly a high one and, even less surprisingly a very meagre statistic about automation failure. In most cases there is mention about some electronic failure, however there is always the mention about the failure of the crew to either prevent it or correct it, thus blaming the pilot and statistically put it down to pilot error.

Take away some automation and I admit we will have some accidents happen that could have been prevented through protections. However we might have some other accidents not happen because the pilots would not have been misled by badly designed or failed automation. Furthermore the training would have not been outsourced to poorly programmed online courses and reduced to the bare minimum and such trained professionals might have avoided some more accidents.

Automation is great, if you have it as nice to have and use when appropriate. Today though, due to poor pilots skills and even poorer manger skills, it has become need to use. I pretend that this philosophy is slightly flawed and sort of originating a lot of accidents.

How convenient for airlines, manufacturers and regulators though: It leaves them with the omnipresent pilot error.
D'you wann bet neither AF nor AB will be indicated in any way for AF447?
It will remain the way it is: Everybody hitting on the admittedly below adequate standard pilots!:ugh:

[Gretchenfrage]

Just do it. If you can't because of SOP, try to discuss and influence change

Sounds great, but somewhat naive. Your last two verbs no longer exist in most outfits, sadly.

Consider yourself lucky to fly in your company, if it really exists or works that way ..... ;)

[Clandestino]

Sabenaboy, how do you dare spoil the fun and interrupt this thread's brash display of popular prejudices, misunderstandings and general ignorance of how aeroplanes fly by discoursing sensibly? Who do you think you are? A pilot?

Naughty boy.... :D:ok:

[Feather #3]

I've possibly posted this earlier in the automation debate, but one of the aforementioned chaps posted in our discussion group that it's dangerous to hand-fly above FL250 and the seatbelt sign should be put on if you do so!

Discussion ceased after an emotional post from me that this was utter bulls#!t and setting the matter straight. However, the thoughts are out there!!:ugh:

G'day ;)

[funfly]

It's not a competition between pilot and computer. Computers fly an aircraft better, more accurate and more efficiently than hand flying.
99.9% of the time.
I would like to think, as a passenger nowadays, that my pilot could cope if I was in the 0.1% situation. That's surely what they are there for otherwise, it could be argued, you don't need a human pilot at all.

[DOVES]

Gretchenfrage:
The good news is that "pilot error" will disappear for ever, there will only be "automation error". Computer operators will be like surgeons: they will not risk even a nail in the operation.

[FlareArmed]

A cut and paste of a document published 4 Jan 2013. Interesting reading and somewhat of a wise about-face IMHO.

A SAFO contains important safety information and may include recommended action. SAFO content should be especially valuable to air carriers in meeting their statutory duty to provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest. Besides the specific action recommended in a SAFO, an alternative action may be as effective in addressing the safety issue named in the SAFO.

Subject: (FAA) Manual Flight Operations

Purpose: This SAFO encourages operators to promote manual flight operations when appropriate.

Background: A recent analysis of flight operations data (including normal flight operations, incidents, and accidents) identified an increase in manual handling errors. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) believes maintaining and improving the knowledge and skills for manual flight operations is necessary for safe flight operations.

Discussion: Modern aircraft are commonly operated using autoflight systems (e.g., autopilot or autothrottle/autothrust). Unfortunately, continuous use of those systems does not reinforce a pilot’s knowledge and skills in manual flight operations. Autoflight systems are useful tools for pilots and have improved safety and workload management, and thus enabled more precise operations. However, continuous use of autoflight systems could lead to degradation of the pilot’s ability to quickly recover the aircraft from an undesired state.

Operators are encouraged to take an integrated approach by incorporating emphasis of manual flight operations into both line operations and training (initial/upgrade and recurrent). Operational policies should be developed or reviewed to ensure there are appropriate opportunities for pilots to exercise manual flying skills, such as in non-RVSM airspace and during low workload conditions. In addition, policies should be developed or reviewed to ensure that pilots understand when to use the automated systems, such as during high workload conditions or airspace procedures that require use of autopilot for precise operations. Augmented crew operations may also limit the ability of some pilots to obtain practice in manual flight operations. Airline operational policies should ensure that all pilots have the appropriate opportunities to exercise the aforementioned knowledge and skills in flight operations.

Recommended Action: Directors of Operations, Program Managers, Directors of Training, Training Center Managers, Check Pilots, Training Pilots, and flightcrews should be familiar with the content of this SAFO. They should work together to ensure that the content of this SAFO is incorporated into operational policy, provided to pilots during ground training, and reinforced in flight training and proficiency checks.

Contact: Questions or comments regarding this SAFO should be directed to the Air Carrier Training Branch, AFS-210, at (202) 267-8166.


[Microburst2002]

Do you have a link to this document?

Seems to good to be true, to me...

[Cagedh]

Do you have a link to this document?Here it is:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2013/SAFO13002.pdf

[TheRobe]

Do this long enough and you start to get a feel for who the airline manufacturers are making planes for. Some has been written about the insiders saying 'we assume the biggest idiot nepotist hiring Chief pilot moron, hiring from the bottom of the resume pile, stuff the seats with incompetent kids'.

So they design slow planes, docile flying characteristics, where the computers handle the stick and big screens tell the pilots where they are. All in the hopes that the pilot salary savings equals more in cash then insurance costs and lawsuits from crashes.

It's working to a certain extent except what your not told is the massive debt the airlines have piled up buying new planes instead of just flying around paid off 737s with new engines. Nope, you don't hear about that. Nor do you hear about how most of the system has gone short haul commuters, nor do you hear that the 'flying' is the same place, same time, over and over, back and forth.

So the kids love it, they can call themselves pilots, the chief pilots love it because they have robots working for them, the passengers love it because they get cheap tickets.

But at a certain point you can't finance $50 million dollar planes to shoe horn kids in to the cockpit to make it work.

Sooner or later the debts come due. I suspect it will wander back to real pilots getting hired, but who cares, really, if no one cares if the Air France guys can't stay straight and level, so be it, a Darwinian outcome.