Flight directors may cause more problems than they are designed to solve

[Tee Emm]

Flight International 5-11 March 2013 has an editorial and and also an article by David Learmount on automation dependency. The editorial heading says "A decision by an airline several years ago to test empirically how pilots use flight instruments to monitor aircraft performance provided information that was unwelcome - and unexpected".

The editorial is then taken up at page 30 by David Learmount under the main heading "Dodging Disaster. Seems that after the Bournemouth close shave by the Thomson Airways 737 where the aircraft nearly went in during a go-around, the company arranged for eye tracking to be carried out in the 737 simulator to see how pilots scanned their flight instruments during a go-around.

According to the FI article, the investigation discovered that many pilots had a disorganised scan which frequently left out vital displays such as the airspeed indicator for critically long periods. Such a fundamental failure in the exercise of a skill which, it has always assumed, was basic to all licenced professional pilots was a shock, raising the question as to how widespread this failure is in the industry as a whole.

It would be interesting to know if these simulator go-around exercises were conducted using the flight director or were they done with the crews flying raw data?
Believe me there is a big difference in scanning between the two situations.

The very nature of flight directors require the pilot to concentrate squarely on the FD needles and normal flight instrument scan becomes practically non-existent. It is no wonder pilots instrument scan on the airspeed indicator and other flight instruments are "disorganised" when 99 percent of an airline pilot's flying in his career will be with reference to the flight director. That is dictated by company policy and recommended by the manufacturer.

The solution to the perceived problem of disorganised instrument scan is to encourage the switching off of the flight directors when not needed for critical parts of a flight. But manual flying would also be needed to keep current on basic instrument flying skills. Pilots scan would soon revert to that taught when they first learned to fly on instruments. The perceived danger involved with IMC go arounds would be a lot less. Flight directors are fine in most circumstances but have proved to be distracting during critical events such as low altitude go-around where trim changes and altitude captures require fast scanning of all the flight instruments - not just the flight director needles. Many pilots find it difficult to `look through` flight director needles in an attempt to see the little aeroplane symbol behind the FD needles.

[FE Hoppy]

FPA
Speed error tape
Acceleration pointer.


All the data you need is right in the middle of the ADI.

[Microburst2002]

Not long ago, in an airbus, the pilot did a go around but they did not actually engaged the mode (which you do by setting the levers in TOGA). He only advanced them to climb power.

Thereafter he followed the bars, which were still in LAND mode, or LOC GS, and the pilot pitched down, going to terrain. They finally averted disaster, but the lesson I get from that is that when workload and stress are at a peak, FD bars are what a pilot will follow, disregarding other sources of information.

I advocate more time with no FDs when circumstances permit. Just a few ILSs and perhaps some no FD take offs, too would be very helpful, along with the sim sessions.

[main_dog]

the lesson I get from that is that when workload and stress are at a peak, FD bars are what a pilot will follow

I think it depends on how you were trained. If you've had it firmly nailed into you from early training to fly the airplane, and that the secret to doing so is always pitch + power = performance, you will be looking "through the bars" for the magic combination that works for your aircraft. On mine during GA I expect to see a little less than 15˚ ANU and thrust 1.45/1.55 depending on engine type (or even simpler, T/Ls wherever they end up with my right arm straight). If the FD bars are wildly off, you bloody well ignore them...

There are only about six or seven attitude and thrust combinations you need to memorise in order to save your ∫utt in pretty much any situation, certainly less than ten, and any pilot taking coin and calling himself a professional owes it to himself and others to learn them.

Grumpy rant mode OFF :}

[Microburst2002]

I agree, but after 10 years on the ULR, I bet even the best trained pilots will tend to follow the FDs blindly

[Sciolistes]

I advocate more time with no FDs when circumstances permit.Indeed. But I also suggest four 4 hour sim sessions a year with nothing but raw data manual approaches, two engine go arounds with early level offs, unusual attitude, stall recovery and unreliable airspeed. Pure training, no checking, no marking, no records, no systems, no stress, just feedback and performed by TRIs and not TREs so as not to influence the actual checks.

I'm also thinking at least a two hour observation sim session prior to a four hour training slot at least once maybe twice a year.

[jbcarioca]

Poor instrument scan is a problem in initial instrument training and in simulator training too, but I cannot understand how that translates to a need to reduce used of FD's. Rather, training that reemphasizes airspeed control, attitude flying in absence of reliable airspeed indication and, indeed, in normal flying is a critical need as well as engine monitoring and so on.

I have no idea how many pilots I have trained for jet transitions and ATP's.
Basic scan has rarely been a major problem in training.

However, doing type ratings for very experienced pilots has sometimes presented scan problems, but seemingly only for pilots who've never faced an actual emergency. Thus, I think good simulator training in emergency procedures with instrumentation failures is highly effective in maintaining proper scans.

Nothing induces good scan techniques so well as partial panel IMC approaches IME.

[sheppey]

I advocate more time with no FDs when circumstances permit. Indeed. But I also suggest four 4 hour sim sessions a year with nothing but raw data manual approaches, two engine go arounds with early level offs, unusual attitude, stall recovery and unreliable airspeed. Pure training, no checking, no marking, no records, no systems, no stress, just feedback and performed by TRIs and not TREs so as not to influence the actual checks.


You have hit the nail squarely on the head. In fact, it is probable that most pilots would be delighted at the opportunity to have that sort of practice. If pushed by ICAO - and by association by regulators - it would surely increase pilot handling proficiency - particularly of newly graduated low hour first officers now being steadily recruited into the airlines. More simulator training as suggested above would also reduce the insidious slide into automation dependency. It would be money well spent.

[despegue]

It is not in the sim that one learns how to fly, it is on the line where one must keep proficient in basic stick and rudder. Standard operation should be without FD. only when traffic is dense or weather should automatics be used, and in RVSM.
The sim is for training emergencies, not stick and rudder. In an emergency, you Should use all help available to you, including automation.

[Centaurus]

The sim is for training emergencies, not stick and rudder

If that is true, then why is it that modern Level D simulators are used for zero/zero flying training and at completion of the type rating course the pilot receives a type rating on his licence. They are very much used for "stick and rudder" training including max crosswind landings, and automatic landings.

[RAT 5]

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. In fact, it is probable that most pilots would be delighted at the opportunity to have that sort of practice. If pushed by ICAO - and by association by regulators - it would surely increase pilot handling proficiency - particularly of newly graduated low hour first officers now being steadily recruited into the airlines. More simulator training as suggested above would also reduce the insidious slide into automation dependency. It would be money well spent.

I am with you on this, but there in lies the rub. The airlines DO NOT WANT to spend the money on unnecessary, i.e. not required training. If I was a chief pilot I would demand my pilots were proficient at these skills and allow them to perform them on a daily basis. That's how I learnt and still keep those skills even with FD on. You have to scan the basics to ensure the FD is not telling porkies. I'm sure the FD's were beautifully centred when Turkish Airlines stalled at AMS. In todays airlines, where visual approaches are discouraged for 'safety issues' and to reduce the number of screw ups and G/A's = time + money, it will take a massive change of culture to shift back to basic piloting skills. There is no will, so there will be no way. And there will certainly be no extra sim training allocated to such frivolities. Meanwhile survivable crashes will continue and Air Crash Investigation on Nat Geo will thrive much to our frustration. One of the latest scenarios was survival if only basics had been employed. If they'd never been taught nor practised then the smoking hole is inevitable.

[main_dog]

If that is true, then why is it that modern Level D simulators are used for zero/zero flying training and at completion of the type rating course the pilot receives a type rating on his licence. They are very much used for "stick and rudder" training including max crosswind landings, and automatic landings.

True, however once on the line you only get back into the sim two or three times a year and spend most of that time doing regulatory items. So in order to keep your scan from getting rusty, F/D off approaches should be regularly practiced on the line (shock, gasp, horror :} )...

[bubbers44]

I only flew with one pilot that blindly flew the flight director. I told her to level out, you are too low. She advised me look at my FD it says fly down. I said look at the runway. She leveled off and intercepted the glide slope but stormed off the airplane because it wasn't her fault the FD stuck, unbelievable.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Flight directors may cause more problems than they are designed to solve

What a fatuous and utterly unsubstantiable statement.

Take them away and find out how many score of problems occur per day as a result.

[despegue]

And that is exactly the problem. if you can not fly without the FD, stay out of the flightdeck and get behind the Macdonalds counter.

[sodapop]

Said it before and so I'll say it once more;

FDs are a great tool. Like any tool they need to be checked and used correctly and, sometimes, not to be trusted. Treat them as an aid and remember what Uncle Ronnie Reagan used to say, "Trust, but Verify".

Reverting to an earlier post on a different thread and at the risk of being (am) redundant;

When being told to "follow the command bars", the reply was "those are suggestion bars, I'll do the commanding thank you".

This is an example of what I mean:

The Office - Michael Drives Car into lake - YouTube

[Agaricus bisporus]

Despegue, on that logic we'd better bin autopilots too, on the basis that "if you can not fly without ... stay out of the flightdeck and get behind the Macdonalds counter."?

I'm sure you don't actually mean that...

Hell, lets dump instruments, get rid of the windows and put the pilots' heads out in the breeze again. Make the lazy buggers learn to fly by the seat of their pants again.

It aint progress buddy...

[Slasher]

Thereafter he followed the bars, which were still in LAND mode, or LOC GS, and the pilot pitched down,
going to terrain.

See this is what I don't understand - when I go-around I want to go UP and I ensure the machine does
so, whatever the wx and whatever the circumstance. FLY THE DAMN AEROPLANE! has - and always will
be - Emphatic Survival Rule #1. If the FDs say something else and are an annoyance then bugger 'em
- I turn them off and fly the basic combination of attitude power speed and navigation.

In short...Firewall throttles - pull back - get a climb rate - get that gear up - clean up when clear of the
hills and safe to do so (crew workload, airspace, etc). Just because you've plugged 1500ft AGL into the
box as your end of 2nd segment doesn't mean you roboticly shove the nose down and slam into some
thing or someone. Those who fly around the back boondocks of China will know what I'm talking about.

FDs are TOOLS - and very useful ones at that - not gods. In fact I see through them a lot to make sure
they're not bull****ting me - I was trained to do this well on the DC9 back in the days of the old laggy
FD108s. It still holds true for every aeroplane including Airbi.

320 FCOM advises attitudes to fly without FD (EFATO, WS etc). Its primarily what I initially target, fine
tune then confirm with FD.

I can't help but think over the years that good pilotage has to be reinvented every 10 years or so. No
doubt other readers are also aware the primary causes of it.


It would be interesting to know if these simulator go-around exercises were conducted using the flight
director or were they done with the crews flying raw data?

I'm pushing our Training Dept to train our kids using sole raw data at the Basic level and introduce the
AP/FD/AT later in their sim training. The experimental first batch went well and the children took to it
like a duck to water! Our current sim renewals are raw data approaches and go-arounds for ILS & NPAs
(with AT), for both AEO and EO, Capts and Senior FOs. Juniors get the FD for NPAs only. AT off is used
and practised in the LOFT component.

...stormed off the airplane because it wasn't her fault the FD stuck, unbelievable.

Bubbers44 - I can certainly believe it. One kid decided to follow his FD into a hill because he screwed
up the crossing restrictions in the box. I let him go so he could realise and correct his mistake. When
I finally spoke up he said everything's fine because the GPWS hasn't yelled anything! :ugh:


PS apologies if I've echoed and essentially repeated other posters' statements.

[RAT 5]

Years ago, when asked to write a TQ course for B737, I accomplished as much system demonstration and sign off as possible in the FBS phase. Of course some manoeuvres have to be signed off in FFS, but later on. FFS should be focused on handling and operating. Then, in FFS 1 I designed an aerial ballet of turns, climbs, descents, accelerations all mixed up, without FD's to educate the student how to control the a/c manually and learn the scan. ILS's & G/A's followed. This was very useful when converting from needles & dials to EFIS and Maps, and again when converting from up & over screens with ASI & VSI to the side by side screens with speed tape and VSI tape. This allowed 2 hours of acclimatisation and gaining fundamental knowledge of how this a/c wanted to fly. FFS 2 introduced some of the same with FD's. but only 1 hour. Then it was ILS's and G/A's, stalls etc. Now the student had full grasp of the basic a/c and the AFDS. FFS 3 moved onto SE work, a dedicated session. FFS 4 introduced the systems non-normals etc.
Since then I've had to teach courses where FFS 1 had a few moments of poling the a/c and then straight into complicated demos of systems non-normals and all with FD's. FFS 2 was a mixture of various QRH items and then 2 hours for SE intro. The students heads were exploding form doing 6 different QRH's in 1 session and then having to deal with SE intro when their basic a/c handling was still so-so. The foundations had not yet been built. I suggested a couple of extra FFS sessions at the beginning for more GH. Not allowed: "the students are paying and it'll make it too expensive; the course includes all the mandatory items and minimum hours and therefore extra is not necessary. If students are not to LST standard they can pay for extra training later on."
So there is the current philosophy. Sadly, they will not gain much manual flying on the line, as it is discouraged, and command times are 1/2 of what they used to be. Thus many commanders can not perform many basic piloting manoeuvres and there is no will to change. Without regulation and investment it ail get worse not better. Auto-systems will improve and pilots will indeed become button pushers and it will all go well and we shall all survive. There will be no incentive to have good GH pilots. Until............
Things will only change when a top politician or high profile person is the victim of a survivable scenario, but dies and then the questions will be asked: why did the pilot not save the day? Then something may happen.

[A37575]

In 1990, several British glass-cockpit 737 captains were contracted to fly for Hapag Lloyd and based in Hamburg. The reason was a rapid expansion by H/L with new 737-400/500's and their first officers didn't have the minimum hours for command training.

As part of the interview process we were assessed by the chief pilot in a 737 simulator. The test included timed climbing and descending turns at Vref flap 40 at set rates of climb and descent - as well as clean steep turns. This was all done raw data and manual throttle and was certainly a very good exercise in basic instrument flying ability. It was similar to the Pattern D exercise in the old D4 Link Trainer.

It was immediately apparent that those current on raw data flying (whether through choice or previous company SOP) showed up well. Others steeped in automation had significant problems once the flight directors were off and were lucky to just scrape through the simulator assessment. The chief pilot's reason for those raw data exercises was that in his opinion, it gave him an idea who could really fly the aeroplane as against those pilots who were more or less tied to automatics flying.

[misd-agin]

the lesson I get from that is that when workload and stress are at a peak, FD bars are what a pilot will follow, disregarding other sources of information.


The lesson was that those pilots did that. That's a flaw of their training, experience, education and perhaps ability.

Blindly following FD's isn't the answer. The answer is adjusted your attitude so that the FD's respond the way you want them to.

The FD 'stare' will eventually fail you if you have automation confusion and aren't backing it up with the standard instrument scan - attitude/pitch/power, verify performance via airspeed/heading/VVI/altimeter/navigation instruments.

[TLB]

While a bit long (25 mins) and a bit old (15 years), this piece should be mandatory viewing for all pilots, IMHO.

Children of Magenta - YouTube

[Hobo]

Nailed it in one TLB...

This is just what we told my old company's flight management team in 1990 when they tried to make the steam driven 737 - 200 a de facto NG aircraft.

25 minutes of absolutely essential viewing. This video has been used for a number of years in the refresher training of a loco UK based airline.

Without wishing to feed the troll, perhaps Agaricus bisporus could let us know who he flies with and when ... so we can avoid.

.

[seat 0A]

Gentlemen,

We're probably all in agreement that in our profession the hand flying skills are of utmost importance. The paradox is that we hardly get any opportunity to practice it.
Slowly the regulators are realizing this too. In my country the regulator is requiring raw data approaches during the TQ (B777) and lately also A/T off approaches, where previously even "manual" approaches were flown with A/T on. So, slowly the powers that be are seeing the light.
Now it's just a question of convincing the companies to allocate more time and money on training these skills. In my company this is happening, with an allocated time slot in every sim detail to practice whatever you want. Mostly the pilots choose to practice basic handflying skills.
Ultimately it's in our own hands to demand we get the opportunity to maintain our skills.

[Centaurus]

Ultimately it's in our own hands to demand we get the opportunity to maintain our skills.

Demanding anything is likely to get you the sack in many airlines or at the very least, accused of making waves.:sad:

[seat 0A]

I appreciate one has to tread carefully in many companies. But simply being able to fly the expensive equipment in a safe manner is not too much to ask, is it? As always, C'est la tone qui fait la musique.
It's us, as pilots that have to point it out. We need good training!

Looking at the thread about the easyjet strikebreakers in Lisbon and now this, it seems to me that perhaps some people are comfortable accepting nonsense from the companies, as long as they don't have to stick their neck out.

But perhaps I digress......

[RAT 5]

We're probably all in agreement that in our profession the hand flying skills are of utmost importance. The paradox is that we hardly get any opportunity to practice it.

It's us, as pilots that have to point it out. We need good training!

In my company this is happening, with an allocated time slot in every sim detail to practice whatever you want. Mostly the pilots choose to practice basic handflying skills.

I understand the sentiments, but can't agree with them entirely. A few moments in the sim every year is not a solution. It is a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. In my early days on needles & dials the visual approach was the norm. Greeks islands, you had no choice, and it was fun. Spool up before 1500' in an idle descent from FL330 and you bought the beers. The same was true going into LGW, or any airport where the skies were clear, even at night, and a visual approach was requested. This was not cowboy stuff, it was common sense piloting. No rip**** rock & roll circuits; no death dives gear & speed brake just good smooth efficient safe piloting. There was a real sense of achievement. "hardly any opportunity to practice..." there are many opportunities, but some CP's don't let you take them. e.g. instrument approaches only, radar vectors mandatory, no shorter than 4nm, LNAV/VNAV to OM etc. etc. All that nonsense on a severe clear day in the Canaries. Absolute rubbish and one day it will return to haunt those who allowed this situation to evolve. I still say the pax expect us to be the last insurance policy to save their necks. They pay us quite well and they expect their policy to pay out when needed.
When I was on the line, if appropriate, I'd point out the airfield at 40nm and invite a visual without ILS. First reaction was hesitation about how to do it, and then the inevitable "are we allowed to do this?". When encouraged they gave it a go, wobbled a little, and tried their best. The spectrum of success was terrible to behold. The reactions to the failures was "we've not been trained and do not practice:" to "why bother, it's never necessary?" Try doing the circle to land CIA 15 at night on a windy evening.
People often quote the excellent 'Children of the Magenta line". It's very relevant and true. For a little Hollywood tittilation search You Tube for Space Cowboys and the manual approach in the Space Shuttle. When Tommy Lee was asked what the hell he was doing, he answered "I need to know what to do if the computers fail."
Holding your head in your hands between your knees and kissing your ass goodbye is not the correct answer.
I leave behind many fun years which became less so in the twilight due to the mamby pamby attitude. I am nervous about the future, as I would be for any profession where skills are encouraged to be diluted. It scares me when I speak to a friend, a heart surgeon. He came up through the ranks of general medicine, general surgery, and then specialised in hearts. His foundations are solid, and he spent time as an anaesthetist. Very rounded and knowledgeable in his profession. Now he tells me heart surgeons are like todays captains; fast tracked on a specialist route. They are heart surgeons, and other then the basic medical training for doctors, they have very little foundation. Would you like to know that when the mask goes over your nose & mouth. Blind faith = ignorance is bliss. Our pax are just the same. I hope they are not let down by their faith. Everytime I watch 'Air Crash Investigation' I wonder where our proud profession
is going. Sometimes I salute the gladiators who vanquished the lions; other times I wonder why they were in the same arena.

Now, still teaching TQ courses, I am troubled by the bare minimums of the syllabus. It's tick in boxes and focus on passing the exam. The attitude is "they will learn on the line". That might have been true when commands took 8 years at best (charter airlines), but that is where the diverse nature of our profession and required handling skills were learnt. In the legacy carriers it could be 15 years and over a variety of a/c and operational theatres. They too gained much knowledge, different, before responsibility. Now, in short-haul LoCo's the rise to the top step is 4 years. The a/c might not break as often; there are more ILS's; there are more radars from takeoff to touchdown, the SOP's are more thorough, but the brain is still young. Ones hopes it develops before it is tested. That is the risk the industry has chosen to take. As Dave Allen used to sign off with, "may your God go with you."

[seat 0A]

RAT 5, I totally agree with your posting.
I know the few moments in the sim is insufficient. But often it is the only chance you get.
Apart from the points you make in your own posting, let me explain why we hardly get any opportunity to practice. I fly long haul and in a good month I get to make two landings. Mostly this is on busy airports where you simply get no chance to make a visual approach. Try asking for a visual with Heathrow Director.
This is the paradox I'm talking about. I used to fly 737 and we got a fair amount of visual approaches on the quiet airports. We also did a lot more stretches and landings obviously.
We're all human and as such we need training to maintain skills we cannot practice.

[main_dog]

Try asking for a visual with Heathrow Director.

Then provided the weather is fine just hand fly it (F/Ds off) from BIG/LAM/OCK/BNN outbound. LHR is easy because you always know what you're going to get, it's always the same vectors and speeds. At least you will practice your scan.

Standing by for a lot of flak from automation junkies horrified at the thought of actually flying through the London TMA rather than letting George do it... :}

[parabellum]

Standing by for a lot of flak from automation junkies horrified at the thought
of actually flying through the London TMA rather than letting George do it...

As indeed you might main_dog! SOP for two major airlines I worked for required the auto-pilot at 400' in order that we stuck rigidly to the noise abatement routes/profiles. Experience showed that the majority of noise 'busts' came from hand flown departures.

[sodapop]

Parabellum,

from BIG/LAM/OCK/BNN outbound. LHR is easy because you always know what you're going to get, it's always the same vectors and speed

I'm guessing Main Dog is talking about the arrival to LHR and not the noise abatement SIDs.

[main_dog]

Absolutely Sodapop, I'm talking about the Heathrow canned arrival, leave LAM hdg 270 degrees speed 220 kts etc etc, just a matter of flying the usual vectors and speeds. Granted, it's a bit of an extreme example due to the busy nature of Heathrow and there are certainly better places to practice, but it should not be beyond the ability of even a freshly minted F/O.

The SIDs are a little trickier because of the combination of high rates of climb and dense traffic, you certainly wouldn't want to bust a level in London TMA. :eek:

Airlines that have mandatory autopilot engagement SOPs really get up my nose, and are in my opinion one of the major contributors to the current erosion of handling skills that the industry is slowly beginning to acknowledge. These airlines effectively want to have their cake and eat it too: on the one hand they require you to always use the A/P (and reap the perceived immediate benefits of increased safety and passenger comfort), on the other hand the day automation fails they expect you to magically transition to pitch and power hand flying and save everybody's bacon.

Unless they are putting you into the sim for a session of pure stick and rudder practice at least once a month ($$$$), by the time you need the skills -that you probably had to demonstrate in the interview sim- they will have eroded. You can't have it both ways: opportunities must be provided to develop and maintain proficient handling skills, otherwise you are simply sweeping the problem under a carpet and creating basic handling problems in the long term.

[RAT 5]

Seat 0A. Greetings, Indeed I see your point. If you were with an airline with multi types e.g. small/medium/large you would hopefully have learnt the basic skills before venturing to the heady heights of long-haul cockpits. While you may not have frequent opportunities to keep your hand in any chance would be grasped. At least you knew how to do it once upon a time. The real question here is that there are short-haul operators that do not encourage the acquisition and maintenance of these basic skills. Those pilots will never learn them. A few moments in the sim is not a solution; indeed there is the threat that they think they can then poll around the sky and come a cropper when attempting it.
From friends in Cathay in the old Kai Tak days I understand it was a command upgrade requirement to demonstrate a checker board visual arrival. As many SFO's were baby sitting for many months, on the 3rd seat as F/O's were being trained, their handling skills were very rusty when they arrived for a command course. For some it was one approach too far. Their once honed skills had been diluted, but at least they once had them and they could be recovered with a little effort and guidance. Never having had them it will take much longer to attain them, and in todays environment and philosophy it is not uncommon that they will always remain a magical mystery.
There are airlines that train cadets with the basic base training circuit, as per the norm. Round and round they go until BTRE is satisfied they will not give the LTC's nor pax a fright. However, they will never be allowed to perform such a circuit again on the line. Too dangerous, causes too many G/A's etc.etc. What chance have the got to hone their piloting skills. VNAV/LNAV to OM. It's a U$60m play station with a bit of Wii thrown in. Soon they'll have their own sims at home. Studying by 'flying the arm chair' will become a fact. Good game, good game, but the scores on the doors might not be attractive.