How many sectors do you handfly?

[Speedwinner]

Hello friends,

just a little question: How many sectors do you handfly without FD and AP and ATHR to stay in practice? Im talking about normal Ops, no low vis etc. I used to fly as much as i can, but unfortunately the airbus is operated with max use of equipment .

Cheers!

[H. Hughes]

I´d love to handfly more to keep my skills, it is also encouraged in our OM-A to do so if WX/Airspace permits and you are aware of the increased workload on Pilot Monitoring.

However, as 90% of all SID´s and STAR´s we fly is PRNAV required we have to use the FD. And with RVSM also the Autopilot above 280. Have flown a few short sectors below FL280 with visual departure and arrival/approach by hand with no use of FD and Autopilot, great fun and wish there were more opportunities.

It should be realized though that in todays airspace there is a safety gain from the increased situational awareness and reduced workload that comes from utilizing the automatics. Just as long as one selects the proper level of automation for the task at hand, and have the skill to do it without need be. Just search on youtube for: "Children of the magenta line" And you will see what I´m on about.

[fantom]

without FD and AP and ATHR

Airbus? Are you joking?

Do not do it.

[Office Pest]

Personally - if the conditions are fine and the other chap is happy I try to do one a day.

[A791E]

Why not hand-flying an airbus?

[misd-agin]

Without A/T's? Every landing.
Without FD? Never. Ignore the FD? Every flight. :ok:

[Check Airman]

If you mean hand flying the entire flight, I've only ever done it twice.

I do turn off the all the automation between 10k and 20k every few weeks though.

[bubbers44]

So you are just flying a heading and attitude? 10,000 ft and below is where Manual hand flying should keep up your flying skills. The day your automation fails you need these skills to do an approach and land. It is the way we always did it.

[bubbers44]

That means no AT, AP, or FD. It is quite easy because we all did it 10 years ago with no problem. I am sure we could have flown the Airbus the same way unless it doesn't fly like a real airplane like Boeing.

[Robert G Mugabe]

You Kids

You still actually believe in flying

:mad:

When you need to do it react and base it on previous experience. Oh hang on .....

[Denti]

Flying full sectors without FD, AP, AT? Did around twice a day a few years ago, but nowadays im too lazy, its usually just til climb speed is on past 10k and then somewhere below 20k off and the rest manually. However, without FD? Quite often actually, the whole flight. Don't need it for the AP and not for manual flight anyway.

[bubbers44]

I thought I would get a lot of hate mail over the anti Airbus coments but didn't. I just don't think Airbus should be making pilots button pushers and lose their flying skills. Most of them have already, unless they went to the airport and did it on their own. AF447 showed the loss of their flying skills flying the Airbus. They turned a simple loss of airspeed into a deep stall for no reason. We need to go back to where pilots were pilots, not computer operators.

[misd-agin]

It's not only an Airbus issue. It's more a company SOP based issue.

[captjns]

I'm lucky to be on the Boeing. On a four sector day, I offer my FOs the opportunity To give the autopilot a day off from work so they can manually fly the jet from T/O to RVSM. Then from TOD to landing. FDs and A/T at their discretion. VMC is not required either:ok:.

[Intruder]

Not to mention FARs: RVSM, RNAV Sids & STARs, Q Routes...

[Microburst2002]

Fantom

What's the problem. I have flown several zero automation flights in the bus. It is a delight.


Bubbers

What boeing are you taliing about, 737, 747, ,757, 767... Or flybywire 777 and 787?

Airbus is a real airplane. What would make it unreal? Fbw?

All boeings have automation. Continuous use of automation degrades hand flying skills, no matter what the model is.

Company policy and captain's attitude towards hand flying will determine the degree of hand skills in a given company. Not the model.

[bubbers44]

By choice I just flew Boeing aircraft so never flew an Airbus. Airbus pilots on this site keep saying you need to leave the automation on. I was wondering why the Airbus had to be flown differently. Is it because they are taught to never hand fly? Why can us Boeing guys hand fly the whole flight if we choose to but the Airbus guys need automation?

[bubbers44]

To answer your question, 737, 757, 767. MD 80 also now.

[autoflight]

AP on immediately after take-off with auto land, where possible, should be considered normal. This allows PF to view the complete picture and manage the flight. Most I ever did was hand fly from 10 thousand ft or hand fly with double FMGC failure.

A more important question would be, how many sectors do you give to your F/O? And do you set conditions that make him/her feel that the sector really is PF without undue prompting? On a 5 sector day do you ever give F/O 4 sectors? Do you make F/O feel like a valuable crew member? My experience with F/O reaction was that they seldom got this consideration.

As captain, if you are mostly far removed from these principles, reconsideration is due.

[OPEN DES]

A320

I always fly rawdata with a/thr off. I disconnect between 5000-10000ft, when it starts to get interesting. Except LVO or when something else is going on. Beware of copycat behaviour though.......

A320 TRE

[bubbers44]

The PIC should be proficient as well as the FO being able to be at any second able to take over the aircraft with a malfunction with no problem. Anything short of this should require retraining to reasume duties. SOP's should never make you an autopilot monitor only. That is the way we always did it. We should be able to do it in all aircraft, including Airbus today.

[galaxy flyer]

Bubbers44

The problem, Sir, is that taking over manually requires some real hand flying time, IN WEATHER. Today's pilots don't do that because SOPs don't allow it. Thirty-plus years ago, in thick cloud, I went lost wingman from lead. Unknown to me, we were in turn, into me. When I put my eyes on the MM-3 (type was NAA F-100) I was at low altitude, at 60+ degrees of bank. It was hard getting my internal gyros back after the fast roll to wings level. How many of today's sports could handle it? I did have many hours of hand flown IFR, moving cancelled checks.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

hand flying time, IN WEATHER. Today's pilots don't do that because SOPs don't allow it.

Well I've flown for three different airlines and five different types and I've never seen such an SOP.

[galaxy flyer]

LSM

The theme of this thread, and of the nearby one on FAA SAFO 13002, is that thru SOPs, training policy, standards or Captain's Perogative, hand lying skills have not been practiced; that a record of incidents where poor hand flying skills resulted in unsafe or unplanned aircraft attitudes. My point is that 250- hour cadets don't have the requisite hand flying time to be truly proficient at it and an airliner isn't the place to learn. I had over 5,000 hours, 1,000 actual, hand flown IFR in my class and WASN'T near the "high guy" in the group.

[bubbers44]

GF, I had it happen in a Lear 23 with a friend handflying and he was going into a 45 degree bank when I took over as I had been balancing fuel when I felt level but all three atitude indicators indicated a 45 degree bank. We were still in the clouds over 35,00 ft. It takes a lot of trust to not trust your brain but go by what the instruments say to save the day. You need to do it anyway.

[misd-agin]

GF, I had it happen in a Lear 23 with a friend handflying and he was going into a 45 degree bank


Apparently guys couldn't fly back then either even without FBW and FMC's.

[bubbers44]

Vertigo is what we called it back then. Your brain told you you were doing one thing and the instruments something else. JFK JR had that happen to him. He crashed because he didn't trust his instruments. He went by what his brain told him to do, not his instruments. That is why you need to discipline yourself to trust your instruments..

[Ollie Onion]

It's a nice thought hand flying the entire sector but unfortunately in most airlines SOP just won't allow this. My last airline had an SOP to not disconnect the A/THR unless a procedure or impending 'excedence' required you to do so. In my current airline there is an SOP to say that the A/P must be engaged at all times above 10,000' and that below 10,000 manual hand flying should only be undertaken in 'good' weather and the could base must not be within 1,000' of the applicable minima. Having said that over half my approaches are generally visual approaches and all hand flown so I get plenty of practice.

[main_dog]

Fantom:without FD and AP and ATHR

Airbus? Are you joking?

Do not do it.

You're the one joking right? If anything it's far easier to hand-fly the bus than a Boeing raw data...

Autoflight:AP on immediately after take-off with auto land, where possible, should be considered normal.

You're kidding too, right? :{

In answer to the OP: on mediumhaul (A321) I used to do at least one or two raw data approaches a week (no A/P F/D A/T), but an entire hand-flown sector probably only about once a year. They're a pain because cruise is the time to do paperwork :} and fuel checks, and the fun/challenging bits are climb and descent anyway. Plus you really have to be flight-planned below FL290 otherwise it's RVSM and the A/P should probably be engaged.

Now on medium/longhaul (B744) I never do an entire hand-flown sector for obvious reasons, although I try to do one raw data descent/approach a month if I can.

I have never flown for an airline that discouraged manual flight and hope I never have to.

[PENKO]

Due to the autotrim the Airbus is actually a bit more challenging to fly since ANY correction in pitch needs a counter correction when back on the glide. You can't just nudge the plane back on the glideslope whilst remaining in trim like in any other airplane. This is a minor difference, but it shows...

Having said that, I actually handfly the Airbus raw data during the approach far more often than I ever did on the Boeing, to avoid becoming too lazy. Maybe 10% of time? Yes, in good wx.

[aircanadaA320]

ususally in good weather, I takeoff with no F/D A/THR or any automation.

On landing when I hand fly for the last 1000 feet, I disconnect the AFDS using the A/P DISCONNECT button on the MCP on my 737-800. I personally do not rely on the F/D on landing since I have my own landing technique.

[M-ONGO]

Is that so? Maybe you should get licensed and rated first.

Looking for good way to get my 737-800 type rating
I am still in the simulator training on a 737-800 full flight simulator by CAE. It is a Level-D simulator and I have around 1 and a half year of training left until I leave. Where should I continue my training on the 737-800? It is tricky because I live in Hong Kong and I am a member in the Hong Kong Aviation Club. My dream is to study in Australia for flight school and I've always wanted to be a 737-800 pilot, especially for Hong Kong express to start off.

Help is appreciated, thanks

[PENKO]

[qoute]I personally do not rely on the F/D on landing since I have my own landing technique.[/quote]

Now I'm very curious as to your landing technique..
And I sincerely hope you don't mean the flare!

[Lord Spandex Masher]

And why wouldn't you just use the disco button on the stick?

[sabenaboy]

My point is that 250- hour cadets don't have the requisite hand flying time to be truly proficient at it and an airliner isn't the place to learn.

The problem is not the lowtimers. Blame the company's training department!

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

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

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

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

without FD and AP and ATHR?
Airbus? Are you joking?

Do not do it.

I do sincerely hope that you were just kidding. :ugh: I can assure you that it's a great machine to handfly with A/P, F/D's and A/T switched off! Last week, at the end of a sim recurrent, we had some spare time and I did a handflown ILS app with A/P, F/D and A/T off to catIIIb minima (ceiling at 25 ft and rvr 125m, no wind) I greased it on the centerline (no applause please, I'm pretty sure that 90% of the pilots in our company would be able to demonstrate that!)

[Checkboard]

For those who regularly hand fly, to keep up their skills -

How many calculate an off-track critical point, point of no return and last point of safe diversion (including engine out and depressurisation contingency checks) while in the cruise?

Are you keeping ALL of your skills up? ;)

[Centaurus]

Cut and pasted from Pprune SE Asia and Far East Forum.


No take off and landings for Lion Air F/O's?


Understand Lion Air has issued a notice to pilots that all take off and landings and operations below 5000 ft must be conducted by the captain. This in response to many incidents such as tail-strikes caused by inexperienced first officers. The F/O's are allowed to handle the aircraft only above 5000 ft.

Maybe more concentrated simulator training on take off and landings are needed before line training?


Now that is what I call real scary. What hope do first officers have to take over from the captain in case of captain's incapacitation? I understand one Asian operator with A330's bans all take off and landings for A330 first officers until five years on type. Then after five years they go on to the A320 for take off and landing practice then back on the A330 and get the occasional landing after that..

[Microburst2002]

Lion air is a ptf airline. That is, there is CM 1 and superfirstclass in row 0 R.

Hand flying skills do not depend on type, but on policy and kind of operations (major airports vs touristic island airport, for instance). But it is true that pilots who are afraid to hand fly say that airbus is not the airplane for handflying, that it is meant flr full auto only.

In my airline boeing pilots are as restricted as airbus ones in this regard.

Bubbers, you would equalky handfly the 777, which us fbw. And the airbus if you dared

[FullWings]

I handfly with as little automation as possible when I can - which is not that often when you're doing 6-14hr sectors, often into dodgy weather and terrain at strange times of the day or night.

For me, there's not much point taking out the autopilot if you're going to leave the FD on and AT in... Unfortunately, we're not supposed to take the AT out, so that's one thing gone. You can mimic manual thrust by putting it in LVL CHG (777), but that can leave you without AT wakeup, should you get distracted.

There are many areas where A/P use is mandatory or highly encouraged, like RVSM, some RNAV SIDs/STARs, RNAV(RNP) approaches, etc. You just get in the habit of flying it through the FMC/MCP, which, to be honest, sometimes requires more knowledge and skill than basic handflying.

Given ground-based navaids are continually being withdrawn, waypoints are becoming purely RNAV and curved approaches using WAAS/LAAS are on the menu, there won't be much real flying to do unless you happen to see the airport through a gap in the clouds and they let you go visual. :sad: Just as well I have my own aircraft to do what I like in. :)

[bubbers44]

MB02, I would dare if I ever flew an Airbus or 777 but since I haven't because of choice and quality of life in both cases can't compare them with the four jet airliners I flew as captain that were easy to fly with all automation including FDs turned off. As I said before we even got dispatched with AP inop. from LAS to MSP and back at high altitude with no problem as a new captain with a brand new FO never in the flight levels.

I have been listening to posts of Airbus pilots that would never fly unless their automation was working. It might not be true but that is what they post.

[misd-agin]

Hand fly entire sectors? At high altitude? For hours? For what? Macho? It's a major pain in the rear. I've flown 4 hr legs in the 30's. It's work and fatiguing.

But it can't be that tough. I've seen non pilots hand fly jets at FL410. So if someone with zero time can do it what is a professional pilot trying to prove?

[Lucerne]

I fly each and every one by hand. I would suffer from extreme boredome if I didn't.

[Microburst2002]

I have been listening to posts of Airbus pilots that would never fly unless their automation was working. It might not be true but that is what they post.


True. It is a fact that most airbus pilots are very reluctant to handfly and they blame the airplane for that. The truth is that they don't trust in the airplane, typically because they don't fully understand it. It is very complex and going out of the box can bring unexpected consequences. Instead of studying and fully understanding airbus automation and flight controls, they decide to keep automation at all costs.

the usual symptom of such pilots in the sim is when the A/THR goes out, THR LK flashes on the FMA, perhaps they have the ECAM THR LVR MOVE, which means that thrust is frozen and pilot should take over from then on, and these pilots simply refuse to take over. Speed is gradually busted and still they decide to ignore the thrust levers. The caution chime will keep coming every 5 secs until you take over, so the whole situation is very irritating, and it takes a few, "thrust is yours" verbal clues until they move the levers. Many others don't have this patetic behaviour, of course but there are too many who behave like that, I have seen it many times, proportionally too many. If they did just a couple of hand flown ILS without A/THR every 2 or 3 months they wouldn't feel abandoned when A/THR is inop.

Cadets should definetly hand fly as much as they could, since one thing is loosing skill due to lack of practice and quite another is not having the skills in the first place...

[Slasher]

I might handfly the 320 suck-squirt completely raw data if the trip is short (ie
below RVSM) and the FO is a switched on-bloke. This means no AP FD or AT
from eng start to eng SD. If the entire track is following ground navaids I can
solely use them too.

RVSM wise its everything off till 1,000 below RVSM lower level on the way up
then turn it all off again at the RVSM lower level on the way down.

Only time I'd cancel this is OEI esp on TO...at 400ft I'd slowly reinstall these
tools of trade for mutual crew workload alleviation.

[PENKO]

Microburst2002, not realizing that the thrust is locked when the aircraft is in a failure mode is something completely different than not handflying enough.

You can hand fly the airbus all year long without ever getting the 'thrust locked' situation. The situation you describe has more to do with unfamiliarity with the Airbus intricacies.



Anyway, why would anyone want to hand fly any airplane straight and level for any part of any flight? That's what autopilots have been made for for the last 80 years!

[pom]

Hand flying modern aircraft is fine, but the handling pilot must realise that he is significantly adding to the workload of the non handling pilot. In busy airspace this might not be acceptable. Automation led to a reduction in crew numbers, so the autopilot should be thought of as the third crew member - the aircraft is designed around this concept. So if you decide to hand fly, consider the workload you are handing your colleague, and if you are in a busy TCA you may decide that you are decreasing the safety of your operation. It goes without saying that in an emergency situation you should be able to cope - but practicing for emergencies should be done in the simulator.

[vilas]

The sole purpose of manual flying is to develop and maintain the skill needed to do so when automation fails and nothing more. There should be no sense of adventurism. Commercial flights are not training flights. Passengers pay to go from A to B as safely as possible. The very purpose of the flight is to make money for the company and not to get some thrill out doing something extraordinary. If you create an incidence/accident while trying to be a better pilot try telling that to the passengers. How many sectors you should hand fly. The answer is as minimum as required to keep the skill. Anyone who needs to manually fly 4 sectors everyday should have been doing something else. Another thing Airbus FBW has been aroung and growing for last 21 years and is here to stay. If you are not comfortable with the machine you should change your job. any new aeroplane you fly you need to adapt to it and not otherway round. I have flown both As and Bs and enjoyed both. Uneasiness about a machine is in the mind.

[vilas]

Microburst2002
I am sure as A320 pilot you are aware that A320 is a stabilised platform aircraft, in that the computers hold the aeroplane in the state autopilot was disconnected and resist any change that is not commanded by side stick and rudder. So it does not require as much skill to fly it as B 737 or A310 for that matter would require. Aircraft auto trims and holds the position you leave it in. If you can't fly A320 you won't be able to fly any aircraft. It doesn't get easier than that. What you have mentioned about Thrust lock being ignored in the SIM is a case of very bad training. I have not seen even a 200hrs guy do that. When failure takes place first thing is Fly, Navigate, communicate. Fly means check the state of AP, FD, ATHR, Altitude, Speed and sort out things in that order before dealing with ECAM. Yes since ATHR is recommended and used mostly you need to practice and develop scan to fly without ATHR that will happen in any aircraft

[Check Airman]

Hand flying modern aircraft is fine, but the handling pilot must realise that he is significantly adding to the workload of the non handling pilot.

I disagree. I've flown many a trip where the CA decides to hand fly a bit more than usual. I flew with one such fellow only yesterday. I didn't feel that my workload was significantly increased. Perhaps flying a complex SID in a 727 or DC9...maybe. However in a modern jet, I fail to see how the workoad increases to the point where safety is compromised.

Before anybody attacks me, I'm obviously not talking about a busy airport while avoiding weather on a crowded frequency etc, but on a normal day, what's the big deal?

[sabenaboy]

@ vilasThe sole purpose of manual flying is to develop and maintain the skill needed to do so when automation fails and nothing more.
Wrong!! Manual flight can be more effective then using the autopilot! Are you one of those pilots who would use HDG and V/S to fly a visual approach or a circuit? Once you master manual flight, under certain circumstances it's much easier and just as safe (or safer) then letting the A/P do it! If you haven't done it already, you really should take the time to watch children of magenta (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk). It's a very old speech, but still very much applicable today!
There should be no sense of adventurism You're right about that! If the PIC of the flight I'm a passenger on, sees it as an adventure :ugh: to disconnect the automatics, I would prefer him to keep the A/P on! Better yet: I'd prefer not to be flying with this guy. I want my pilots to be convinced that they can handle the plane just as safely by hand then through the A/P! Let me assure you sure you that whenever I disconnect that A/P I'm convinced that I can fly the plane at least as safely as the automatics! I don't feel an adventurer when doing so, but I agree it is much more FUN handflying my A320 through a visual then taking the vectors to the ILS with A/P on!!! If you create an incidence/accident while trying to be a better pilot try telling that to the passengers. And what are you going to tell the pax when the pilots let a perfect plane crash simply because tha auto-flight system did not behave the way they expected it to and they were letting the plane crash because of it?Passengers pay to go from A to B as safely as possible. Absolutely! The pax deserve pilots who are fully proficient! I cannot imagine the Asiana crash would have happened if the PF hand been handling the thrust levers himself instead of relying on A/Thr! Even if he was very rusty and uncomfortable with it, I'm sure that he and his training captain would have been monitoring airspeed, pitch and thrust and the worst that would have happened was a go-around but certainly not a crash! The very purpose of the flight is to make money for the company and not to get some thrill out doing something extraordinary True! read what I have to say about that (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/519746-automation-vs-seat-pants-flying-talking-devils-advocate-so-no-abuse-plea.html#post7956095)! How many sectors you should hand fly. The answer is as minimum as required to keep the skill. Anyone who needs to manually fly 4 sectors everyday should have been doing something else. Wrong!!! Every time there's nothing from stopping you (too much traffic, too tired, low visibility or cloudbase...) you SHOULD handfly your plane. Only then will you stay/become so proficient to make you convinced that you can be just as safe as when using the A/P! Only then will you become confident enough to instantly take over from a failing or mismanaged auto-flight system! The Qantas crippled A380 crew had to hand-fly the final app because the A/P couldn't handle it. I'm glad they were proficient enough to handle it! Would the outcome have been different if the A380 had belonged to an other company? Some Korean company? I would hope not...
If you are not comfortable with the machine you should change your job. any new aeroplane you fly you need to adapt to it and not otherway round. I have flown both As and Bs and enjoyed both. Uneasiness about a machine is in the mind. You could even say that you should change your job if you're not comfortable HAND-FLYING that plane. I'll say it again: they're all big Cessna's. A correct pitch, bank, speed, thrust setting and configuration is all you need!! Uneasiness about manual flight is only in the mind brought about by stupid SOP's and a dangerous lack of currency!! Commercial flights are not training flights. Aren't they? How do you expect somebody new on type to get really proficient then? Let him/her fly a couple of dozen sectors with an empty airliner! No!! Consider every flight as a training opportunity! That doesn't mean you should start experimenting or taking risks of course. By all means, keep it safe! But, vilas, the very fact that you seem to be thinking that manual flight would be less safe, suggests to me that it's time to start thinking about your proficiency in manual flight! Boy, am I glad we have a good training department (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/506383-how-many-sectors-do-you-handfly-2.html#post7662835) in our company! Before anybody attacks me, I'm obviously not talking about a busy airport while avoiding weather on a crowded frequency etc, but on a normal day, what's the big deal? Amen to that!

edit: added a paragraph

[PBY]

Not only people cannot hand-fly an airbus. Now they even cannot do the pilot monitoring job, if the Pilot flying is flying manually.
It is true. I also fly 4 out of 5 approaches manually and some guys cannot cope with setting basic headings and altitudes.
I think these days average airbus guys are on the verge of being overloaded even if the automation is on and on a nice day.
Many guys hide the inability to fly an aircraft behind the words of how safe they are, because they are using automation. But when something goes wrong, they are trying to use automation to fix it. And that is often even more difficult than just take over manually. Yes, guys are even hopeless to fly the automation.
By flying the automation I mean when you have to give it some inputs, because the situation changed. If the automation works correctly you could even sit in a passenger seat and the flight would be a success.
If you make training too easy for people, it eventually becomes difficult for them. If you make it difficult, it becomes easy.
I find handflying the airbus wth no FDs, Autothrust and no bird (what a heresy! we are all going to die!) very easy, low task and relaxing. No emergency at all.
I feel sorry for guys, who consider it an emergency. I think they should have been accountants instead.
By the way the AF447 was not in deep stall. It would have been enough just to release the sidestick and everybody would have been alive.
Airlines are a sad, sad place. Thank God for pprune, because at least here I can communicate with guys, who also like flying. I guess in my airline I am the only one.

[Check Airman]

sabenaboy (http://www.pprune.org/members/38556-sabenaboy),

I agree with most everything you've written here. I'm not nearly as experienced as many of the posters here, but I shudder to think of how some would react to the clearance I was given last night...

Abeam the field, 5-6000ft, cleared for the visual approach. AP off, FD off (no AT) and turn for the airport. Did some of that stuff my PPL instructor taught me and eventually found the runway. It would even have been a greaser if the runway had been about 6 inches closer to sea level, but I digress...:)

Fortunately, at my outfit, we don't have any major restrictions concerning hand flying.

[Check Airman]

I think these days average airbus guys are on the verge of being overloaded even if the automation is on and on a nice day.

What in God's name can be so demanding that they can't monitor your flying?


But when something goes wrong, they are trying to use automation to fix it. And that is often even more difficult than just take over manually.

Amen. When the "AP" screws up, I often have to sit and diagnose the problem. Meanwhile, I'm still travelling at 200+kts and getting higher above the glideslope. Quite often, I find that the fastest remedy is to turn off the AP and FD (because it can be distracting) and just fly the bloody plane.

[RAT 5]

J.S.
Couldn't agree more, but todays training has moved in another direction. Guys are nervous about doing so. I see the Mac/Microsoft generation of newbies in the cockpit and when the a/c goers in the wrong direction on the automatics the first thing that happens is heads down and dancing fingers on the keyboard. Or piano playing on the MCP. The last thing that happens is disconnect.

The other thing that makes me nervous is that the SOP says "after flaps are up engage VNAV." So they do, even with a malfunction. I suggest that they do not necessarily know what the FMC will be commanding so not connecting the FMC to the AFDS could be a safer option. Try HDG SEL or LVL CHG as appropriate and have direct control of what's going on.
This too seems to be a revelation because the SOP says VNAV. (scream & shout!)

[captjns]

I hand fly every leg with (No FDs) to RVSM. Disconnect from TOD if cleard to a FL below RVSM regardless of Wx conditions. I encourage my F/Os to do the same except with FDs in the Wx until they gain experience, then their option.



At the end of the day F/Ds A/Ts, A/Ps, a pilot does not make:ok:.

[sabenaboy]

I hand fly every(?) leg with (No FDs) to RVSM. Disconnect from TOD if cleard to a FL below RVSM regardless of Wx conditions(?). I encourage my F/Os to do the same except with FDs in the Wx until they gain experience, then their option.
(The bold print and question marks are mine)

Even though I'm a big fan of flying manually and do so on most (not every!) approaches (read my previous message), I think you're exaggerating! Let James fly the airplane when it would be (just as) boring to do otherwise (descending "manually" along a STAR from FL290 down seems pretty boring to me) Also I would hope you would keep at least the F/D on when the metar reports cloudbase at the CAT I minimum with 800 m visibilty. There's one thing you should NEVER switch off: common sense!
(edited for spelling)

[Check Airman]

When the AP screws up, or when you screw up by putting the wrong inputs into the FCU and/or FMGC?

That's why I put it in quotes in my first post :}

Regarding handflying in IMC, I'm happy to do it raw data down to about 500ft agl. If the ceiling is below that, I prefer to have the AP do it so I can monitor the big picture more effectively. In VMC, I try to go down to mins without looking outside once or twice a month.

[aviatorhi]

I handfly every leg up to at least 10, sometimes up to the cruise level (allow for altitude capture though). On the way down I'll usually click it off around 10 as well, maybe lower. This is regardless of weather.

A/T not installed and good riddance to that.

at least the F/D on

Don't need it, never use it.

[mikedreamer787]

About one short sector a month depending on crew workload
and whether I'm in the mood. Also I fly the omnis while letting
the kid keep the magenta on his side.

[GlenQuagmire]

What a pile of macho horse sheet...

If you all all hand fly so much how do you eat your doughnuts?

Why do I wade through pages of this utter diatribe..

[captjns]

Sabenaboy says Even though I'm a big fan of flying manually and do so on most (not every!) approaches (read my previous message), I think you're exaggerating! Let James fly the airplane when it would be (just as) boring to do otherwise (descending "manually" along a STAR from FL290 down seems pretty boring to me) Also I would hope you would keep at least the F/D on when the metar reports cloudbase at the CAT I minimum with 800 m visibilty. There's one thing you should NEVER switch off: common sense!

We probably come from different generations and types of flying. I started flying single engine single pilot freight many years ago. No F/D, no GPS, no AP, and NO MAGENTA LINE. My F/Os will disagree with you about your statement regarding exaggerations. If the weather is poor than I will have my low time F/O use the F/Ds for departures and arrivals. At least my F/Os understand the true meaning of situational awareness, and not only to terrain, but to what the aircraft is doing.:ok:

[sabenaboy]

My F/Os will disagree with you about your statement regarding exaggerations

When I said I thought you were exaggerating, that did not mean I didn't believe you. I tried to say that, unless you're not flying a "modern" plane, you're exaggerating when you decide not to use the automatics when there's a good reason to. Don't get me wrong: If you look at my previous posts you can see that I still do A LOT of basic flying in my A320 with everything switched off (except the engines :\ ) and that I am a fierce defender of airline pilots having to maintain basic flying skills by taking the automation out whenever the conditions permit. The question is: What are you going to decide if the metar says that both cloud-base and visibility are very close to the minima for your Cat I ils approach? I'm sure that you and myself and all of our F/O's are ABLE to fly to the minima with the "needles centered" without F/D and without A/thr. (Our training manager joked that he would ask Airbus for a discount if we ordered our next A320's without F/D installed) I would think it's wiser to keep at least the F/D on in such conditions. Chances are that will not happen more then once or twice/year.

I think that every pilot should fly manually (A/P, F/D and A/Thr off) very regularly when there's no reason not to, but I also think that when there is a good reason to use the automatics a wise pilot should do so.

I fully agree that autoflight systems are installed to reduce the workload for the crew and NOT because the crew can't fly without, but I really do not feel the need to prove that on the line with a full load of pax in marginal conditions even if I'm 100% sure that I CAN!

[Gegenbeispiel]

sabenaboy: >"You could even say that you should change your job if you're not comfortable HAND-FLYING that plane. I'll say it again: they're all big Cessna's."

No way. :ugh: A Cessna's (152, 172, 182) engine doesn't take 8-10 sec to respond to a power demand.

Agree with your other stuff.

[Gegenbeispiel]

sabenaboy: >"I still do A LOT of basic flying in my A320 with everything switched off (except the engines http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wibble.gif )"

Switched off? Do you pull some breakers to force your A320 into Direct Law (otherwise it's hardly basic flying)?

If so, I expect you need to avoid telling the regulators about it - or your management. I suspect they just might be spooked ...:rolleyes:

[DozyWannabe]

Switched off? Do you pull some breakers to force your A320 into Direct Law (otherwise it's hardly basic flying)?

Come on - that's a little bit over-combative. In layman's terms handflying is still handflying whether what's between you and the flight surfaces consists of braided cable, an electronic FBW system or anything inbetween.

[despegue]

On my first ever line flight on B737 EFIS,
The Line- trainer told me to fly raw data, full rose ( so no map) to cruising level, and then again disconnect all at TOD to touchdown...
It made me getting a feeling for the aircraft very easily,and only once comfortable with the BASIC of the aircraft should you progress to autoflight modes and its tricks and pittfalls.

I fly raw data as much as possible when fatigue, traffic and weather allows me to, and urge my FO's to do the same.

Ps. Sabena has always been recognised as a reference in Safety and Crew proficiency:ok: isnt't it Sabenaboy:} Now for Sobelair...These were the cowboys:E:ok:

[sabenaboy]

Using automation saves fuel!? NO, I disagree! (I already gave an example in this post (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/519746-automation-vs-seat-pants-flying-talking-devils-advocate-so-no-abuse-plea.html#post7956095))

Let me give you an other example that happened to me just a few days ago:
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7538/gozn.jpg

I was approaching CFU from the NNE. At aprox. 200 NM out we realised that the B737 20 NM ahead of us was also going to CFU. (The 737 was from a well known LCC with HQ in Ireland) And even though we were flying CI 10 in our A320 , we were catching up on him. We asked for his speed via ATC. We reduced from 270 to 260 kts when he replied his speed was 265 kts.

The weather was severe cavok with "unlimited" visibility, not a single cloud around and no wind! We were both transferred to CFU radar at about 70 nm out. ATC told the 737 that he was nr 1 for landing and that he could proceed to GAR for the VOR 35 app. We were told we were nr 2 and got vectored to BETAK.

When I go to CFU with such conditions, I would jump on the occasion and ask for a right hand visual to rwy 35 over the water! Prompted by me, ATC asked him if he would be flying the full procedure VOR app or if he was interested in a visual app.

He turned down the visual and opted for the full procedure! :ugh::ugh::ugh:
(he was at FL160 with 50 NM to go to GAR!)
While we were vectored beyond BETAK around the island while being told to reduce speed (already flying 250 below FL100), he flew the whole app at very slow speed. Even when reducing to 180 kts at BETAK, we were only 5 NM behind him on final and landed 2 min later. I strongly suspect he flew the whole approach on the FMGC speed and profile.

Now I can fully understand that a pilot follows the FMGC computed speeds during descend as per SOP, but this pilot could easily have saved 3 minutes, 12 miles and >100 kg of fuel by doing a nice and easy visual app. :ugh:

We, after vacating the rwy had to hold position one extra minute because the mandatory follow me was still busy with the 737. We arrived on blocks 8 mins later and with 200 kgs less fuel then I had hoped to be (If I had received a visual with no delay)!

To me this crew is the equivalent of an 85 yr old lady doing 70 km/h on a German highway!

Perhaps SOMETIMES automation can save fuel, but this crew certainly missed a great opportunity to use some airmanship to save fuel, time and money!

Of course one should have some airmanship before being able to use it! :rolleyes:

[A37575]

Also I would hope you would keep at least the F/D on when the metar reports cloudbase at the CAT I minimum with 800 m visibilty.

Once you find yourself welded to using the FD which after all is only an aid to navigation, and not essential to fly an ILS, then you are a member of the automatics addiction club. You are to be pitied.:{

[vilas]

I am not able to get this arithmetic. Four sectors a day to be proficient to fly a normal approach with auto trim then how many sectors ( Sim Sessions)required with failures and direct law landing? Also pilots fly more accurately than digital autopilots, Automation is waste of time and money, FMCs do not save fuel. Wouldn't my first aircraft the DC3 with jet engine solve all your problems.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Sabenaboy, unless you can state how much extra fuel they used because of the way they flew their approach you're talking nonsense. Yes, it may have caused you to use more fuel (it's a challenge causing your competitors to use a bit extra but it can be done) but then that may be your fault for not doing something about it earlier.

Anyway, that's not what people mean when they say automation flies more efficiently than you do.

[Gegenbeispiel]

DozyWannabe (http://www.pprune.org/members/54871-dozywannabe): A320-330-340-380 FBW Normal Law may have the look and feel of basic handflying, but it's very far from it - loads of protections, loads of nonlinearity of control surface response. Have a look at Normal Law specs.

[DozyWannabe]

Gegenbeispiel - I'm well aware of Airbus FBW Normal Law augmentations (hell, just have a look at my post history!), but in practical terms it's not really anything more than an evolution of the artificial feel technology that airliners have been using for over half a century.

Obviously, if you lose the augmentations then you'll need to step up your efforts a bit, but in real terms it's not a great deal different than, say, losing hydraulic assist on a B737. That's why they train for these things in the sim!

[root]

Of course one should have some airmanship before being able to use it! :rolleyes:

Certain carriers prohibit visual approaches to some airfields in Europe. Quit taking cheap shots at other pilots without knowing the full story.

[aviatorhi]

It is patently NOT appropriate to hand fly in certain situations...

Just Wrong.

[parabellum]

It is good to see that one or two people here have got the message. Trying to hand fly in a busy TMA with continual flight path variations and frequency changes loads up the PNF unnecessarily and is positively dangerous. R/T gets missed and checks get rushed, both can be fatal.



Also pilots fly more accurately than digital autopilots,


You are joking aren't you?


Sabenaboy - Pray tell us more about the Ryanair in front of you at Corfu. How many times had the pilot flying been there before? Was it a check ride? Was it a pilot under training? What is the Ryanair SOP for Corfu? You sound rather intolerant.

[aviatorhi]

loads up the PNF unnecessarily

No, pointless procedures do that.

And maybe not "more accurately", but with "more finesse" for sure, and that's only if they're good.

[Ultra Glide]

The Airbus can easily be hand flown BUT it's a tad trickier than "conventional" aircraft (meaning aircraft that you can trim) because you cannot "trim a speed".

Here's a way to visualize the difference between an Airbus and a plane you can trim:

Airplane you can trim: Straight and level, 250 knots, AP, FD, ATHR off, you retard the the thrust to idle, hands off, the airplane descends at 250 knots.

Airbus: Same scenario, you retard the thrust to idle, hands off, the airplane continues straight and level and starts slowing down, increasing pitch attitude to maintain the flight path.

You can think of the side-stick as a "flight path selector". Whatever flight path you have when you release the stick is what flight path the aircraft will maintain (until you exceed the flight envelope but that's another subject).

So, for example, when you're flying around in the terminal area getting vectors for an approach and they tell you descend from FL 100 to FL 60, you have to retard the thrust levers to idle AND make a DEFINITE nose down push on the sidestick to make the airplane go down.

In my MD-80 days all I had to do was pull the power off.

So you make your nose down input, now you have to pay a lot of attention to the speed to make sure you have EXACTLY set the correct pitch attitude to maintain your 250 knots or whatever (the odds of which are slim to none) so WATCH THAT SPEED and KEEP watching it because you will never actually set this theoretical EXACT pitch attitude to maintain the correct speed for anything longer than about a minute or two if you're lucky.

The reverse is also true in that when you add power, you better PULL that nose up, it won't go up by itself like in a "conventional" airplane that is always trying to maintain its trimmed speed.

There have already been at least 2 Airbus crashes during go arounds where the guys failed to adequately increase the pitch attitude and the airplane just went downhill faster and faster when they pushed the thrust levers to TOGA. (There was more to it than that obviously, but it was a major factor.)

One was a Gulf Air in Bahrain like about 10 years ago and the was only a few years ago somewhere in the Black Sea or some inland lake in Eastern Europe or where ever.

Those 2 crashes most likely would not have happened had they been flying airplanes that you can trim because after setting TOGA thrust, the airplane would have pitched up mightily to maintain the trimmed approach speed with TOGA thrust. They would have had to push the control column forward HARD and even trimmed nose down to achieve those flight paths into the water that those guys achieved effortlessly in their Airbuses.

Another thing: the thrust lever travel is shorter than on other airplanes so the thrust appears appears a bit more sensitive but it's not a big deal, you get used to it pretty quick.

So, once you understand the subtle but important differences between flying an airplane that is always trying to fly the last selected flight path versus an airplane that is always trying to fly the last speed you've trimmed it for, hand flying an Airbus, while not quite as easy as hand flying a trimmable airplane, is nothing to fear. Just scan the hell out of your speed all the time.

And that's my 2 cents worth.

[parabellum]

No, pointless procedures do that.


aviatorhi - Sorry but you are talking rubbish. Are you one of those characters that ignores SOPs? You certainly sound it. Just what is your experience that you have reached these astonishing conclusions? How much airline flying, light, medium and heavy and what routes, much USA experience?

[aviatorhi]

John,

There are no situations where it is inappropriate to hand fly.

And in all fairness there are 3 I can think of, CAT II and CATIII ops as well as cruising in RVSM. Though we all well know that's not what we're talking about here.

Parabellum,

I've watched the procedures of other carriers, like the prohibition on the PF setting bugs, and find them pointless, we have no such prohibition, and I have no interest in flying for carriers that turn pilots into drones rather than airmen.

[Gegenbeispiel]

DozyWannabe: >"Airbus FBW Normal Law augmentations ... it's not really anything more than an evolution of the artificial feel technology that airliners have been using for over half a century"

With the greatest respect, I disagree vehemently. I actually think the belief quoted above was a factor in many if not most [thankfully not very numerous] Airbus accidents to date.

Just the fact you can drop out of Normal into Alternate into Direct makes things very different.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

CAT II

So what about CAT II on aircraft with no autoland?

I'm confident in my ability to fly an NDB approach down to minimums with max crosswind, on raw data and with all the automatics switched off. Would I actually do it? Of course not, as it's a situation where it's simply not appropriate to do so.

Why not?

[VP-F__]

reading this thread how privileged am I that for ten years, approx 6000 hours and roughly 10000 landings I hand flew every sector, it was in an Islander mind you!

[jamie1985]

I'm obviously missing something here. Why on Earth would anyone choose to deliberately use reduced automation in marginal conditions?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

I'm a pilot and it's my job, that's why.

Would I be correct in surmising that the first time you'd want to hand fly a raw data NDB to minima in a 35 knot crosswind would be when you're forced to, possibly by a surprising technical problem half way down the approach? Or maybe you think practicing once in a blue moon in benign weather is adequate preparation?

[antonov09]

You are absolutely full of :mad: Spandex.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Which bit? I'm a pilot or its my job?

[flyingchanges]

What about cat3 with no autopilot...

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Indeed, so the only time you shouldn't hand fly is in RVSM.

FC - CRJ or EMB, or something else?

[despegue]

Well, regarding RVSM...
The regulation actually tells you that you need to have autopilot AVAILABLE:E

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Indeed, so the only time you shouldn't hand fly is...never!

Glad we got that cleared up.

[flyingchanges]

We are forced to hand fly our CATIII approaches.

[aviatorhi]

You love your automation... I get it.

I have hardly any use for it besides altitude hold (we don't have CAT II or CAT III anyway).

[Ultra Glide]

I don't think you need to be in actual IMC to practice an instrument approach. You can practice just fine in VMC. Just don't look outside.

If I'm doing it in IMC I don't think that counts as "practice" I think I'm actually doing it. Not so?

Unless the A/P F/D are of no help at all, I would feel much better sitting in the back of someone's airplane if they would use them in actual conditions.

As an intermediate step, new guys can learn A LOT about hand flying their airplanes with the flight directors on but the auto-thrust should be off for it to be really effective. With auto-thrust on it's almost pointless.

(Edited to fix the font size. Sorry Sabena, didn't know I was shouting. As time passes I have to tilt my head further and further back to get more and more magnification from my progressive lenses... also, I thought ALL CAPS was shouting... also I'm new to posting and I didn't know how it would look... I'm full of excuses and can keep going if need be... stop me before I excuse again!:) )

[sabenaboy]

There's a time and place for everything. If you read through my posts (http://www.pprune.org/search.php?do=finduser&u=38556), you can easily see that I'm a big fan of manual flight. In the A320, I only use auto thrust for automated cat II or III landings and I switch off the A/P and F/D on almost all approaches. The important word is "almost".

I'm absolutely, positively sure that I can get my A320 down to cat I ils minima with 550 m vis in a 35 kts gusty crosswind with A/P, F/D, A/T and one engine off with the needles centered. I even believe that I can land the A320 in actual cat III minima without A/P, F/D or A/T. (Done it in the sim) But, I do think that anybody who fails to see that there are sometimes conditions where using some or all of the autoflight systems is the most appropriate thing to do, are even more dangerous then the guys who always fly through the A/P.. (Unless your flying old equipment, without a modern, reliable autoflight system of course)

There's nothing wrong in using the A/P because it makes your life and work easier in certain conditions, as long as you don't need the A/P to fly the plane, because you're not good enough at flying it yourself. :ok:

Oh, and please, when ATC offers you do a visual approach in Corfu in ideal conditions, don't turn the offer down! :rolleyes:

(Ultra Glide? why are you shouting?)

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Oh, and please, when ATC offers you do a visual approach in Corfu in ideal conditions, don't turn the offer down!

Why? If it means that you're going to be extended, stuck into the hold or whatever and use a load more gas then I shall make sure that happens. No skin off my nose as I won't be using anymore fuel than planned, but you will. If its a company aircraft following me then I'll do my absolute best to make sure they don't have to fly any further than necessary.

[sabenaboy]

unless you can state how much extra fuel they used because of the way they flew their approach you're talking nonsense.

Do I really need to explain to you how the 737 could have saved fuel and time by flying a nice visual instead of flying the aprox 22 miles after GAR during the full VOR procedure in the given conditions?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

No, but you can tell me how much extra fuel they used by doing so. You can tell me why we should give a damn how much extra fuel you used. Maybe they did it just to wind you up and make you burn your extra 200 kilos. I do that sometimes.

We're they low enough to shorten their approach and not screw it up? Maybe they'd have had to fly the exact same track miles on a visual approach in which case what would be the point?

It's also possible to fly that whole procedure at flight idle, that'll still save fuel over the planned burn, maybe even over a visual approach which most people tend to fly flatter and with a bit of power on.

[sabenaboy]

Maybe they did it just to wind you up and make you burn your extra 200 kilos. I do that sometimes. Oh, what a nice professional and collegial attitude! Keep up the good work! :D

...maybe even over a visual approach which most people tend to fly flatter and with a bit of power on. As I said, it takes some piloting skills to do a nice visual approach, but it's not that difficult. A little bit of airmanship suffices! I guess that's getting rare. :rolleyes:

[Lord Spandex Masher]

But you haven't said how much extra fuel they used by flying the procedure! Of course, they may have had to burn off that extra fuel to get under MLW, who knows? Not you.

Keep up the good work!

It's like this you see. I could save 50 kilos by shortening my approach. This might allow you to save 50 kilos too. Or I can fly what I've planned to fly, but more efficiently saving perhaps 40 kilos, which might make you use 2 or 300 kilos more. Net result - your lot spend more money. That's competition.

Or I could fly a bit faster, get in front of you and save myself 2 or 300 kilos by using a little bit more than planned and not having to extend miles downwind while you happily fly around in circles using up your reserves. Maybe you should've done that into Corfu.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Why, you think I should be bullied into a visual approach to save your airline some fuel? You think I'm not perfectly entitled to fly my flight planned route? If it causes you to use a bit more fuel why does that make me any less professional?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

It can't be moronic if it's a fact. Which it is.

Maybe if you don't want your airline to spend more money try and be more flexible and proactive when it comes to the tactical situation that you should see developing ahead of you. I'm not going to help you out. In fact I'm going to go out of my way to ensure that my airline benefits.

[captjns]

John Smith is of the opinion that,,,

It's not about being 'welded to using the FD'. It's about making best use of automation. It is patently NOT appropriate to hand fly in certain situations, without an exceptionally good reason to do so.

As a line trainer I feel it most important to expose my students to all forms of manual flight, regardless of weather, and traffic situations. It gives the student confidence during line training, and the learning process. Not every Captain, nor Line Trainer has the same threshhold of pain.

Lets assume you are in cruise with EGLL is your destination. The Wx at EGLL is RVR 600 in BR. The Wx at EGSS is CAVOK. Just prior to TOD, all the automatics are T/U, is one to declare a "Pan Pan" and divert to EGSS? Pax would be peeved to say the least. That would be a rather interesting conversation with the C/P.

That's why the need for as much hand flying without automatics, in the Jet, ( not the simulator twice a year) for those who wish to maintain their proficiency.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

John, you keep quoting different things. I don't plan it but if the opportunity appears, usually because some idiot has got his head stuck up his :mad:, then I'll take it.

Let me give you a real life example.

Cruising merrily down to Spain and gradually overhauling an orange Airbus 2000 above us. Said orange Airbus starts weaving all over the sky, unnecessarily, to avoid some clouds. We start catching him up quite quickly now. After a while he requests descent and is cleared on the same arrival as we are. It's a procedural approach at destination and requires large spacing because they would only allow one aircraft at a time on the approach. At this point we also realise ATC are in no way interested in forward planning and have allowed us to get too close. Anyway, said orange airbus, now back at 245kts or so has descended through our level and is only 5 miles ahead of us. Not enough spacing and I can see us getting a hold or two, or three. So I elect to increase our speed all round and eventually get in front, then we request descent. We are first to the IAF whereupon ATC wake up and tell him to go around the hold at 7000' twice before he can start the approach. Que very unprofessional comment from said orange Airbus and much mirth in our flight deck.

So dear John you think I should've come back to min clean and let him go first, thereby screwing up our schedule and fuel plan or would you have done what I did, annoy them a bit and waste a few hundred kilos of their gas?

You or me pal.

[parabellum]

Anyway, said orange airbus, now back at 245kts or so has descended through our level and is only 5 miles ahead of us. Not enough spacing and I can see us getting a hold or two, or three. So I elect to increase our speed all round and eventually get in front, then we request descent.


Quite sure I have never before heard of quite such unprofessional conduct throughout my entire flying career. John Smith is correct at every level.

Oh yes, and by electing to increase your speed all round sufficient to get ahead in such a short timescale do you really think you saved any fuel?
Not a drop.:mad:

[root]

I always get slightly worried reading through these threads knowing I share airspace quite frequently with some posters on here.

All this adversarial language, speaking in terms of "your" and "my" airline, cutting people off, deliberately trying to screw over other pilots, etc...

Remember, you're all just one interview away from becoming actual colleagues in the same company, perhaps even from sitting next to each other in the flight deck.

Relax, go have a cup of tea and enjoy the weather. Most of us only get a few weeks of summer ;)

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Quite sure I have never before heard of quite such unprofessional conduct throughout my entire flying career. John Smith is correct at every level.

Absolutely right. ATC should have seen this situation developing much earlier. They even knew we were both going to the same destination from the time we entered their airspace. Awful behaviour indeed.

Oh yes, and by electing to increase your speed all round sufficient to get ahead in such a short timescale do you really think you saved any fuel?
Not a drop.:mad:

Yes. Let me explain for you. The extra time at high speed in the cruise used about 80 kilos more than expected. A high speed, flight idle descent used no more and not flying around the hold twice at 7000' used close to 400 kilos less than we would have used. Got it? :mad: indeed.

I guess you'd have been back at min clean over 100 miles out and a couple of holds? Good thinking Mr Efficiency:ok:

[Lord Spandex Masher]

All this adversarial language, speaking in terms of "your" and "my" airline, cutting people off, deliberately trying to screw over other pilots, etc...

We weren't trying to screw anyone over deliberately, an opportunity presented itself and we took it, that's all. Is there any reason I shouldn't try and save money for my airline? It's my job after all. What you do for yours is up to you but don't expect me to follow you around at the speeds you fly, if I can get ahead and be more expeditious I will.

, you're all just one interview away from becoming actual colleagues in the same company, perhaps even from sitting next to each other in the flight deck.

That's ok, it's nothing personal.

[Capn Bloggs]

High speed overtakes, min speed clean from 100nm out...

How many sectors do you blokes handfly again? :hmm:

[willl05]

What else do you do? Occupy the runway after landing to force the competition to go around?

What a disgusting creature you are!

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Not yet, but thanks for the tip.

Maybe you could explain exactly what is so unprofessional and disgusting about flying faster than another aircraft? If your explanation is reasonable I will ask our flight planners to ensure that we never fly faster than anybody else.

Maybe you'd like to explain what you'd do in the situation I described.

[willl05]

LMS:
If it means that you're going to be extended, stuck into the hold or whatever and use a load more gas then I shall make sure that happens.

Intentionally causing inefficiencies, even to the competition, hurts the industry as a whole.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

You must quote in context chap. That context being - I do not have to do a visual approach just because you want me to. I'm perfectly entitled to fly the full flight plan including the arrival and approach if I want to.

As is everybody else. Really disgusting.

[willl05]

The sentence I quoted is quite clear. It does not say that you just want to follow your own plan; you have every right to do that. What it says is that you "shall make sure that" the other guy has to waste resources.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

That sentence is in response to another post, the one I quoted, telling everyone not to turn down the offer of a visual approach.

Which, according to you, I have every right to do. So what's the beef?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

No John, I haven't stated it was part of my approach planning. As you can see I said maybe that's what they did. When I said "I do that sometimes" I meant that I won't be forced into a visual approach just because I can hear the exasperated cries of Mr Rush behind us.

If you burn more fuel or get wound up as a by product of that then I don't care. If you think I'm going to go visual just so you don't get wound up or burn more fuel or because you are in a rush then you're wrong. So yes I'll make sure it happens by flying the approach the way I've planned to. However, I did say sometimes so if I'm with a decent FO and\or we've briefed or we're familiar enough then I will accept a visual. But not because you think I should because you're late, or whatever.

You say it's unprofessional yet you also say nobody should be bullied into a visual.

[TypeIV]

I don't handfly whole sectors but if a portion of the flight has some little trickier portions I try to handfly them raw data as often as possible depending on the captain on the flight. I fly the 737.

For instance tight DME arcs when there's a lot of wind, complex transitions with many letdowns having course and navaidchanges etc so I have to scan the approach plate as well, scanning simply instruments is not that stimulating. Otherwise I don't handily normal portions of the flight that I've been doing millions of time more than a few times a month. I'm busy fighting severe complacency :8

[Ultra Glide]

Oh for the days when I'd go and do six 52 mile sectors in the morning in a DC-9.

Being a green and keen F/O in those days I never turned on the autopilot. Jaded skippers did, but not for long, takeoff to touchdown was about 12 minutes at 250 knots and 11 minutes at 320 knots.

It almost seemed like one continuous reading of the checklist from start to finish.

And when your navigation equipment consisted of 2 VOR's and 2 ADF's you could have your airplane set up for the return flight in under a minute.

[BARKINGMAD]

Now now class, settle down and be quiet and serious.

You 2 in the back row please stop comparing :mad: size and try to concentrate!!!

The OP raised a very interesting and potentially informative thread and some of you have descended into behaviour more suitable for behind the bike sheds than the sort of conduct we expect in this schools debating society.

Horrors, some airline management and regulators may even now be reading this, and we complain about a lack of respect and remuneration in our various form levels?!

Now let's have some calm reflection and thinking and try to persuade the head that we actually deserve to go on the school trip to the airport and see the planes and be allowed to visit the control tower, otherwise it will be detention for ALL of you ! ! ! ! ! ! :rolleyes:

[Capn Bloggs]

otherwise it will be detention for ALL of you ! ! ! ! ! !
I think a whipping with a disconnected auto throttle would be in order first. :}

[Lord Spandex Masher]

First of all Barkingmad :p:p:p na naaaaa na naaaa naaaaaa :p:p:p You've got to catch me first:E

I appreciate I'm generally off the original topic although it has stemmed from a post concerning that topic and that's just the way most threads go anyway.

I'll be quiet when people stop calling me unprofessional and disgusting and offer me a realistic alternative to the situation(s) I have described. Which they haven't, not one.

[Khozai737]

Just wondering if P-RNAV SID and STAR are also flown without FDs?

[172_driver]

Just wondering if P-RNAV SID and STAR are also flown without FDs?

Could be.. keeping within +/- 1 nm of the magenta line is not that difficult.

[Denti]

Just wondering if P-RNAV SID and STAR are also flown without FDs?

Sure, why not? The navigation performance scales in the PFD tell you exactly how you are doing vs the required navigation performance. Not any issue at all if you are a pilot and not just a glorified system manager.

[Khozai737]

Nice! I'll try that on my next flight if the capt allows it. All I've been so far is a glorified system manager, that's about to change.

[thing]

Not an airliner pilot guys, just a normal GA guy but looking at it from my side I recently flew a 172 back from somewhere in **** weather getting tossed around in IMC at a whole FL50. I then flew a PAR which was a break off because some lost clown wandered across the approach, then had another go, broke out at minimums and plonked it down in pissing down rain and a xw gusting above a/c limits.. After a minute to chill after I shut down I walked into the club and asked 'How much would it cost to get a f****** autopilot fitted to that thing.'

Just saying.

And before someone says 'You should have stayed on the ground in the first place'...yeah, I know, but the weather man he tells lies and I don't have instant weather readouts or weather radars and all the other good **** you guys have. It was not an instance where my superior knowledge kept me out of a situation requiring the use of my superior skills...

Be thankful you have all the toys to play with. I know you are commercial pilots and a world away from what I do but it wasn't always like that. I take it you've all read 'Fate Is The Hunter'?

[flarepilot]

thing

I take it you are in europe?


anyway, I know of a case of a brand new NON instrument rated pilot with a great new piper turbo arrow...full autopilot and nav package, deluxe.

was flying back from oregon to california...at night...went into a towering cu/thunderhead/lightning.

plane broke apart

now, I'm not blaming the plane or the autopilot...but the autopilot may have had too much and the pilot (biological) may have over controlled the plane.

you have had a good experience...hang on to it and the confidence...then use wisdom to avoid the same situation.


AS to the real question, you should hand fly enough ''sectors" (here in the USA, we say LEGS) so that you can handle all situations without an autopilot.

[thing]

In UK flare pilot.

Mate of mine flies 74's for BA and I'm sure he hand flies every third approach, which for him is probably once a month. Don't know anything about BA but I got the impression it was company policy.

As for your Piper turbo pilot I find it worrying that SEP's are getting to the same level of sophistication as airliners. Guys go on courses to learn the ins and outs of Garmin 1000's etc. At the end of the day it's an SEP, keep your eyes out of the cockpit where they belong and fly the bloody aeroplane, it's not an Airbus. Having said that there have been the odd occassions where I would have welcomed a simple course hold autopilot, not because the a/c is getting ahead of me in foul weather but it just frees up a bit of capacity that you may need.

Don't know how old you are but do you remember when we all magically managed without mobile phones? Now if I get down the road and mrs thing has forgotten hers we have to go back for it. Same with tech, soon guys won't get into their Saratoga or whatever without a GPS or synthetic vision etc. They still crash. Mainly because the warm and safe feeling that all of this tech gives them removes them from the fact that they are flying two tons of metal at 150 kts through the air, relying on nothing more than physics and a single propellor and engine to keep them alive.

[flarepilot]

hi thing

the piper accident happened about 30 years ago...still had an autopilot ;-)

I do agree, an autopilot to keep the wings level, couple an approach or to nav/heading and hold pitch if not altitude is nice

but, its like an escalator in a department store (what do you call an escalator in england?)...if you use it every day, you will forget how to use stairs.

I like having a mobile phone with me in case my modern car breaks down.

using an autopilot is a reward for hand flying alot~!

[thing]

We call an escalator an escalator..

However your elevator is actually a lift. I don't know, we gave you a perfectly good language and you have to screw it up..:)

[parabellum]

Careful there thing! The Americans actually speak a more perfect form of English than we British do! British English has been bastardised by much European influence! :)

[flarepilot]

thing...so what do you call the elevator of an airplane? what do you call an aileron, I mean, its french?

[172_driver]

thing...so what do you call the elevator of an airplane?

Lift as well, of course… that's where it comes from :}

[thing]

Careful there thing! The Americans actually speak a more perfect form of English than we British do! British English has been bastardised by much European influence!

Not surprising really being as British is a European language...Britain being a European country and all that...

My Dad God rest him used to make me laugh; he used to say 'We're off to Europe for a holiday.'

So your going from Europe to Europe then are you Dad? Bit like living in Idaho and saying you're going to America for a holiday...:).

Flarepilot: We allow the French to do stuff like naming bits of things, keeps them busy.

[Rick777]

I probably have a different attitude than a lot of people. I spent most of my last ten years as an A320 captain. I tried to use the auto pilot as much as possible except for landings. I usually turned it on about 10,000 and turned it off about 200 ft. About once a month I would hand fly and approach or of course visuals need to be hand flown. Besides the A320 I am type rated in all the Boeings from 707 to 777 except the 737 which I flew as FO for 2 years. About half of my time in a 30 plus year flying career was in non-glass airplanes with no autothrottle and often a marginal autopilot. I guess I just got lazy in my old age, but to tell the truth the A320 is so easy to fly that once a month was plenty of hand flying. The only plane as easy to fly as the A320 is the 777.

[Check Airman]

How did you manage to fly the 737 for 2 years without a type rating?

[Gulfstreamaviator]

many FO did not have TR in them days...

[vilas]

Rick777

"but to tell the truth the A320 is so easy to fly that once a month was plenty of hand flying."

I have been trying to make the same point but perhaps it hurts the ego of some A320 pilots to accept. According to me anyone who needs four sectors everyday to keep hand flying profficiency in A320 is not a very talented pilot. It is good for him to fly four sectors but he cannot insist that those who don't are less professionals. Actually it is otherway round because they monitor many important aspects of flight other than mere manual flying.

[Rick777]

Check Airman, I see you are it the USA. I'm surprised that you don't know that prior to around 2007 or so there was no P2 rating in the US. I was a FO on the 737-300/500 for two years in 1990/91.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Considering that Airbus jets are flight path stable, loss of AT would seem to make it quite a handful to fly would any airbus pilots like to comment on that?

[main_dog]

Actually they are extremely easy to fly with A/T off, at least the A321 I flew for seven years. Provided the thrust changes are not too brusque, the aircraft will maintain its path, while any speed deviation is quickly spotted with the speed trend vector: if the trend vector points forward you pull the thrust levers back a little and viceversa. You simply set a flightpath with the side-stick and then control speed with the thrust levers. Really a sort of point-and-forget aircraft.

Almost too easy to handfly, and consequentially a handful when you go back to direct law (or a pre-777 Boeing or MD) because you are no longer used to monitoring attitude (and trimming) any longer! Or at least that was my experience.

[Pugilistic Animus]

M D thanks for the answer....sounds like a simple airplane to fly except in direct law..or