Automation vs Seat-of-the-pants-flying talking as devil's advocate - so no abuse plea

[mross]

I posted this in the Asiana 214 thread but is was then closed. Was it a :suspect: Moderator who edited my post, changing *Land Rover* to Trabant? I left it as is because it made me laugh.

Automation vs Seat-of-the-pants-flying
talking as devil's advocate - so no abuse please.

Occasionally the pilot has to intervene because the automation is not doing what the pilot expects.

How many times does the automation intervene because the pilot is not doing what the automation philosophy demands? It is probably under reported.

From my perspective the automation has lead to increased safety in the last decade and the odd exceptions do not invalidate this perception.

Most car enthusiasts have had to acknowledge that they can't repair an engine problem on the side of the road any longer due to the sheer amount of electronics under the bonnet (hood, for the cousins) even on my diesel *Trabant*. But, you have to admit, modern cars are incredibly reliable, so it is a worthwhile trade.

That planes will fly without pilots within 20 years is indisputable. Driverless cars will come within ten years. And safety will continue improve.

[john_tullamarine]

changing *Land Rover* to Trabant

Just an aside .. the system did that automatically.

Don't worry too much about it .. the history is it was set up as a joke (a long time ago) between two of the the senior folks on the totem pole.

If I recall correctly, you just need to put some punctuation in, eg Land-Rover, to have the system miss the "offending phrase" and get around the replacement.

Same thing happens if one posts any of a number of naughty words of note and you can see evidence of this from time to time.

[bso]

I am agree, the automation has improved the security, nevertheless, has converted the pilot like a simple manager of the plane, doing the training programmes more simple and short with the pretext that the automation will do that for you, so, you don't need to learn it.

[root]

Passenger or cargo planes without pilots will never exist.

I'm sure engineers at Boeing or Airbus could develop such a plane today. However, there will never be a company daft enough to take the risk of having such planes fly cargo or passengers.

There's just no way the lawyers would allow such a high liability risk to the company. The reason pilots are still in the cockpit is because Boeing and the airline need someone to pile the blame on legally when people die.

[aterpster]

mross:

That planes will fly without pilots within 20 years is indisputable. Driverless cars will come within ten years. And safety will continue improve.

I'd disagree except you've made it indisputable. :D

[Flappo]

Even drones needs a pilot...

[sabenaboy]

Posted in the Asiana crash topicAutomated sector: Fuel used 2,305 kg
Partially hand-flown sector: Fuel used 2,357 kg
The accountants see that 52 kg they multiply it by the number of sectors the company flies a day and decide that hand-flying costs their company £X.XX per year.

Where does this idea come from that handflying would use more fuel? That's bul%$hit! I'm sure the opposite is true! The pilots in my company save the company tons of fuel by flying visual approaches which are often 5 to 10 miles and 2 or 3 minutes shorter then many published full approaches or vectors to final. Almost every time I fly a visual approach raw data approach I land with MORE fuel in the tanks then my FMGC predicted I would have at touchdown! And even if you're hand flying a vectored approach you're not going to use more fuel then when using the autopilot!!!

Of course, I have to be careful. Very often when I hear a British carrier getting a visual approach, I can expect him to make MORE track miles then when getting vectored. :ugh:
Happened to me a few days ago: A Thomson B737 10 miles ahead of us requesting and getting a visual app when he was on downwind for Rwy 25 in Rhodos at 3000'. This guy maintained 3000' and slowed down to 160 kts on downwind, positioning himself to leave 3000' on final on the glideslope. We reported having him in sight and were cleared for a visual as nr 2. We descended to 1500', turned base when he passed us on final. Got our landing clearance at 800' on final when he left the runway. We exited the rwy one exit sooner then he did, taxied back to the apron and got on stand before he did, even if we never hurried or attempted to do so!

We saved fuel. He didn't! :cool:

Was it you in the cockpit perhaps, "Speed of Sound"? :} (just kidding)

[W.R.A.I.T.H]

Passenger or cargo planes without pilots will never exist.

The former I can understand arguing for, with the human element in the loop and the invaluability of human life, your statement may hold true for a long time. The question is, at what point will it become acceptable to stop referring to that human element as "pilot" in exchange for say, air vehicle operator, with suitably adjusted requirements for training and maintenance? Runway to runway automatic flight capability had been demonstrated a long time ago and many times over and all the initial speculation surrounding the Asiana prang makes a certain statement with respect to the respective "pilots" aptitude. The argument that "had the ILS been operational and the pilots' hands tied, the accident would have been avoided" will be heard in the upcoming lawsuits. From there it is again one step closer to de-labeling the human operator as "pilot" in favour of a yet more automation oriented role, since it was once again demonstrated that the respective human element has failed in its ultimate role to take over for failing automation.

Now, pilotless cargo planes? Ten years tops. A consortium centered around BAE Systems is vying for unmanned aircraft to be granted access to common civil (in their speak 'non-segregated') airspace and have recently executed a successful flight trial, see here (http://www.atcglobalhub.com/page.cfm/action=library/libEntryID=1997/libID=5/nocache=04062013). Once that access is granted, it is only a matter of finding the right balance between the value of your cargo in transit, the cost of transportation against the risk-hazard scenario at hand (potential liability and the probability of an accident). Insurance to cover such will be available from day one, for adequate premiums of course. Notwithstanding that there is a myriad of unsolved questions surrounding the prospective commercial operation of unmanned aircraft and some will quite possibly have to be resolved in courts.

So in order to sum it up, my half interested and somewhat educated yet by no means expert guess says that in foreseeable future we will see pilotless freighters - or more precisely, piloted from the ground - while passenger traffic will retain manned pilots. Their role will however continue to evolve towards yet more focus on automation and become somewhat more that of system operators rather than seat of your pants aviators.

[isaneng]

As a flight engineer, I have always flown older generation aircraft. Whilst I am conversant with modern avionics/FMS, I sometimes wonder if they generate a lower arousal state on the flight deck? I would never denigrate the SA they can give, nor deny the flexibility and time savings they present, but when I read some of the tech threads with people contradicting which law the system is operating in, it does make me ponder over the validity of some of the training packages that people are given. Do any of you 'more mature' operators miss the higher workload of yesteryear ????

[Teldorserious]

Talk to any sim instructor and they just shake their heads at 'so how did he get that flying job?'

Simply put, boxes break, in the real world and simulated in the simulator. And when they do, the pilots that can't fly with out the boxes kill people.

Guys that talk safety with regard to automation take the stance that pilots are idiots, that a box needs to fly the plane, and the pilot watches the box. I can't really disagree except somewhere around the 80s, we departed from hiring pilots that didn't need a box, to pilots that couldn't fly with out one. So in the end, if you hire idiots, yes, automation makes flying safer. If you don't hire idiots, then automation makes it easier.

Simply put, if you can't hand fly, navigate and land the aircraft, by yourself under IMC conditions, under partial panel, you aren't a pilot, you are something else, most likely someone who 'networked' 'got lucky' 'bought your way in' or whatever and shouldn't be getting paid to carry passengers. Argue the point if you want, either you can fly or you can't.

[isaneng]

So it's more of a case if being able to step up to the mark when required, ie having the background knowledge and ability. Can newer pilots ever get that training or experience these days?

[RAT 5]

I was lucky and learnt to fly my first big jet B732 in days of visual flying around the islands and into big UK airports. Thus we learnt all aspects of operations, with & without ILS's, and learnt NPA's for real. The a/c was basic, it was just faster than the Navajo I'd spent years on, and bigger than HS125 I'd cut my jet teeth on. The foundations were solidly laid by some good captains and by scaring myself enough times when single crew. (there were lot's of "I learnt about flying..." moments).
I loved the B757/767 technology. Great a/c to hand fly and the info presented made it so much more accurate and easy to be precise. You could rip them around the circuit in some tiny places with full confidence where you were relative to the target. Never did forget or lose the basics. When it got murky the automatics were a joy and abbreviated arrivals still possible with confidence. I had great trouble trying to convince the newbies to hand fly more often and turn off the LNAV/VNAV. Look out of the window and use DME. That was 25 years ago. Now I teach B737NG. The newbies are straight off a Cherokee, or the lucky ones an EFIS trainer. The SOP's demand they fly LNAV/VNAV, so they do. They've read the books backwards. I try to encourage to think of the a/c as faster Seneca; the basics remain the same, things happen quicker. Don't forget the foundations you've already laid, but I do also teach the automatics, above and beyond.....

The SOP police and training gurus hate it. 1 year later you meet the budding pilots on the line and they are bored. No visuals encouraged, and LNAV/VNAV required if you do. The company policy is to dilute piloting skills, but they'll never admit it. It might not be the primary intention, but it is certainly the result.

If anyone knows how to post a link to the classic scene in Space Cowboys where Tommy Lee disconnects all the computers on the Space Shuttle for a landing. The young experience astronaut crew, on the jump seats, are horrified. Post it on here next to the 'Children of the magenta line' video. Next to that post a link to Asiana/SFO & THY/AMS. Then we'll have a view from both sides of the argument.

[MurphyWasRight]

Now, pilotless cargo planes? Ten years tops.


Actually try a few years ago, can't/ dont have time to find the reference at the moment but I remember reading of some enterprising drug smugglers using pilotless planes to get "cargo" over the border.

Now as to sanctioned cargo operations ten years sounds possible, will likely start in isolated areas then slowly spread as expereince is gained.

[Willit Run]

From a previous thread, this chap summed it up well;

"Automation was designed to reduce your work load, not fly your airplane because you can't."

More and more, I see the term "pilot" being replaced with "operator".

A pilot can pretty much get into any airplane and fly it with a little training.
An "operator" has to memorize the manuals so he knows what buttons to push when and hope the machine does what he wants it to do. And, if the machine doesn't do what he thinks it should be doing, accidents/incidents happen.

It seems more and more operators are being trained than pilots.

[Speed of Sound]

Where does this idea come from that handflying would use more fuel? That's bul%$hit! I'm sure the opposite is true! The pilots in my company save the company tons of fuel by flying visual approaches which are often 5 to 10 miles and 2 or 3 minutes shorter then many published full approaches or vectors to final.

Your argument isn't helped by having posted a link to training in your company.

That would suggest that your pilots are trained to fly, as well as manage and as such will have above average flying skills. That means that the majority of pilots aren't as good as your lot, especially if savings are also gained by alternative route/approach planning rather than simply efficiently used thrust, optimum configuration etc. etc.

As flying skills are diminished in favour of training 'systems managers', the number of good flyers will also diminish and more fuel-efficient flying will inevitably tend towards the automatics. Then the bean counters will say 'look, the FD/MCP is consistently outperforming the pilots so let's put even more restrictions on hand-flying'.

At present, with more and more hand flying being discouraged, it is becoming harder to demonstrate statistically that a good pilot using their brains can indeed give you a fuel cost advantage over automation. Catch 22 as Yossarian said!

Of course, even if this could be demonstrated, they may then argue that a training regime such as that at your company is prohibitively expensive, but that argument should be countered by pointing out that good training is a 'one-off' cost vs a whole flying career of fuel savings which should increase exponentially as fuel costs rise. And if more hand-flying/planning is the way to go, there is an added advantage of keeping those skills sharp and current because you are using them on the line rather than in the sim.

As I said, this will probably require regulation* (under the auspices of greater safety)

*or enough particularly enlightened airlines.

[con-pilot]

I was going to say, that I guess in the good old days, but then I really don't know just how 'good' those days were, before all of the modernization that we have today.

Never the less, back when I was flying, I'll use the 727 as an example, the only time we every flew a coupled (autopilot) approach was in recurrency. For some reason the FAA felt that we had to show that we were able to let the autopilot shoot an approach to minimums, while we sat on our hands. I usually took advantage of letting the autopilot shoot the approach in the simulator, by taking a short nap. Admittedly this could cause a slight problem, if the guy in the right seat also took the same advantage to take a nap as well. :p

Back then most of us used 10,000 feet as our 'transition' altitude. That meant after takeoff, that the autopilot was turned on, the shoulder harnessed came off and the seat back was slightly reclined. On the descent it was just the opposite. Seat and seat back to normal, shoulder harness on and autopilot off.

Then I'd hand fly all the way to landing, no matter the weather. I don't think I can remember anybody ever using the autopilot on a visual approach. Back then we landed at quite a few airports whose runways did not always have any type of glide slope or a visual glide slope. Just used the old 3-1 method for judging a glide path. Worked very well.

It looks like for a lot of people, that has changed in today's world. Is it better? To be honest I don't know, as it seems that there are still way too many landing accidents, even with all this automation.

However, an accident such as the one at SFO, completely baffles me that with four pilots in the cockpit, two very experienced, that an accident like this could happen, modernization or no modernization.

[Armchairflyer]

@isanengWhilst I am conversant with modern avionics/FMS, I sometimes wonder if they generate a lower arousal state on the flight deck?One study which has looked into this is Masalonis, A.J., Duley, J.A., & Parasuraman, R. (1999). Effects of manual and autopilot control on mental workload and vigilance during simulated general aviataion flight, Transportation Human Factors, 1(2), 187-200. (I can access a full-text copy, just PM me if interested.)

Another article that may be of interest to several of you is available online. It also gives some examples of how pilots avoid being reduced to mere button-pushers without reverting to (probably not SOP-compliant) pure raw data handflying: Trust but Verify | Flight Safety Foundation (http://flightsafety.org/aerosafety-world-magazine/june-2010/trust-but-verify)


@Teldorserious Argue the point if you want, either you can fly or you can't. Actually I don't think it's that simple. I fully acknowledge the notion of a pilot having to be sufficiently proficient in some tasks even if they are not part of the daily business in highly automated flying (and not of particular interest to bean-counters who are but the executive power of customers who want cheap fares and above all investors who want profit). On the other hand, I posit that even a proficient pilot can be under par or find him/herself in a situation where the aid provided by automation is more than welcome. But of course that's a different story than being completely automation-dependent.

[mross]

I know the loss rate for military drones is very high. But these are not pilotless planes, they are remotely-piloted planes. The losses might be related to loss of comms. Does anyone know the reason (for the losses?) Don't the Russians have autonomous cargo spacecraft supplying the MIR space station? The MARS Rover mission was based on autonomous vehicles because of the too-long delays in radio signals for remote piloting. But today I am still very pleased to see two skilled pilots on board!

[RAT 5]

At present, with more and more hand flying being discouraged, it is becoming harder to demonstrate statistically that a good pilot using their brains can indeed give you a fuel cost advantage over automation. Catch 22 as Yossarian said!

Believe it or not there are airlines that are real LNVA/VNAV sticklers for conformity, but they still have monthly fuel burn league tables. How does that work? You plug in at 1000' and plug out at 1000'. You have no influence, but just fly the route with the computer. Ripping visuals are discouraged so the fuel burn is not under your control. What is the point of league tables. Beats me.

[MurphyWasRight]

I know the loss rate for military drones is very high.
...
Does anyone know the reason (for the losses?)


Maybe someone is shooting at them?

The other reason beyond comm link issues is likely that they are used in ways that would not be considered if a pilot was at risk.

In case you missed it, just search for 'drone license' on cnn.
The guy proposing the ordinace admits it is illegal and also highly unlikely that anyone would be able to bag a drone using the allowed 12 gauge shotgun.


(CNN) -- Deer Trail, a small Colorado town, is considering a measure that would allow its residents to hunt for federal drones and shoot them down.

Deer Trail aims to sell drone hunting licenses for $25, offer bounties for downed drones

Proposed law is "a statement against the coming surveillance society," its author says

[joema]

"But these are not pilotless planes, they are remotely-piloted planes."

For most "drones", that is correct. A better example is Global Hawk which is capable of taxiing out, taking off, flying its entire mission and landing -- all autonomously.

Commercial airliners will never go to pilotless operation in a single jump. It does seem unthinkable -- today.

But in 1958 if you told the proud five-man cockpit crew (pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, navigator, radio operator) on a Lockheed Constellation that one day two-engine planes with only two cockpit crew would fly 8,000-mile non-stop trans-Pacific routes carrying nearly 400 passengers, they'd think you were crazy. If you told them each of the two engines would have 115,000 pounds thrust and the plane could essentially fly the entire route and land by itself, including automatic flare, landing, braking and rollout guidance in zero-zero conditions, they'd say you were certifiable.

Just as we didn't get from four-engine propliners with a five cockpit crew to a two-engine 777-300ER with a two cockpit crew in a single jump, we won't get to "pilotless" airliners in a single jump.

It also won't be done on today's technology but in evolutionary refinements of that.

The next step might be replacing the co-pilot with an on-call flight attendant trained for contingencies. That may seem humorous today -- if you're thinking only of today's technology and procedures. Any such step would be carefully studied, then tried on a very limited basis in strictly controlled conditions while gathering data. This is similar to how ETOPS was rolled out. You didn't go from four-engine trans-Pacific routes to two engines in a single jump.

Over an extended period, much attention will be given to contingencies and redundancy. They might incorporate satellite-linked remote piloting as a contingency. Whatever the path, it will be gradual, with each incremental step studied and tested.

[Linktrained]

"TRUST BUT VERIFY" FSF as quoted by Armchairflyer #18 above.

The statistics for pilots in the survey of 273 Pilots suggests that 82.5% were between the ages of 41 and 60.

The other 17.5% do not come in this age range, (and may be younger ?)

6.2% of all those surveyed stated that they used A/P as soon as possible after T/O.

12.1% kept the A/P on for as long as possible.

I wonder which age groups they came from.

[LeadSled]

mross,
In the early days of "glass", two new standard phrases were added to general flight deck use:
1) What's it doing to us now? and;
2) I've never seen that one before!
They are still in general day to day use, even after twenty five years plus.
Every time there is a new software load, there is an opportunity for new idiosyncrasies.
Remember, the software is only written by humans --- think of the flight deck crew as the final quality control gate for the software.
Pilots are going to be around for a very long times.

[Capn Bloggs]

How many times does the automation intervene because the pilot is not doing what the automation philosophy demands? It is probably under reported.

From my perspective the automation has lead to increased safety in the last decade and the odd exceptions do not invalidate this perception.

Most car enthusiasts have had to acknowledge that they can't repair an engine problem on the side of the road any longer due to the sheer amount of electronics under the bonnet (hood, for the cousins) even on my diesel *Trabant*. But, you have to admit, modern cars are incredibly reliable, so it is a worthwhile trade.

Obviously not a pilot. Of course cars, where electronics have improved engine performance and suspension has improved safety, can merely be pulled over and left to be fixed instead of tweaking the distributor of wiggling the plug leads.

Automation, in the context of handflying, doesn't intervene to save the flight. Far and away the biggest safety improvements have been with safety systems eg GPWS, TCAS and database Constant Descent approaches. These are not automation.

As for "not invalidating your perception", ask the victims of the Turkish 737 or Asiana 214 accidents about what they perceive automation and it's deleterious effect on the ability of pilots to actually fly.

[mross]

My first post was meant to be provocative :). But I did not say pilotless planes would be around soon, I said in less than twenty years. From the Wilbur brothers' flight to the Apollo moon landings was only 66 years and the pace of progress seems to be ever increasing.

@MurphyWasRright

Yes I had seen that story about Deer Trail. I will do some research but I thought the majority of piloted drones were lost in the landing phase and recall a loss rate of about 20%.

@Capn Bloggs

Are you saying that automation contributed to the Asiana 214 crash??? It sure looks like an automated landing would have prevented the crash. You make my argument for me! :D (with great respect sir, since I am only a PPL)

I wasn't comparing cars to planes directly, only making the point that the advanced technology has more advantages than disadvantages in terms of safety and reliability. ABS can diminish braking in soft snow but sooner or later the cars will 'learn' to deal with that.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

If anyone knows how to post a link to the classic scene in Space Cowboys where Tommy Lee disconnects all the computers on the Space Shuttle for a landing. The young experience astronaut crew, on the jump seats, are horrified. Post it on here next to the 'Children of the magenta line' video. Next to that post a link to Asiana/SFO & THY/AMS. Then we'll have a view from both sides of the argument.


Yeah but didn't he stack it the first time? ;)

[RAT 5]

True, but it is a tongue in cheek tilt at the button pushing philosophy and encourages practice to achieve more success.

I can't think of too many professions where the basic hands on skills of the chappie in 'supposed' control has diminished so much so fast. Comparisons would be interesting to note. How alone. or together, are we in this dilution of skill?

[Kefuddle]

Yes I had seen that story about Deer Trail. I will do some research but I thought the majority of piloted drones were lost in the landing phase and recall a loss rate of about 20%.
Watching a UAV land is one of the most comical sights aviation has to offer.

[Lonewolf_50]

Now, pilotless cargo planes? Ten years tops.
The USMC already operates such a thing. K-Max. Pilotless cargo hauling aircraft (helicopter)

I seem to recall that F-4 drones have been flying pilotless for some years at various weapons ranges for the USAF and the USN.

The tech to do this already exists. Has for some years.

[Capn Bloggs]

Are you saying that automation contributed to the Asiana 214 crash??? It sure looks like an automated landing would have prevented the crash. You make my argument for me! (with great respect sir, since I am only a PPL)
Err, no, it is an obvious example of the deleterious effect of automation (using too much of it) on handflying skills.

Tommy Lee disconnects all the computers on the Space Shuttle for a landing. The young experience astronaut crew, on the jump seats, are horrified.
As was R2D2:

2XdJkB8hg6s

[barit1]

mross:Are you saying that automation contributed to the Asiana 214 crash??? It sure looks like an automated landing would have prevented the crash. You make my argument for me! (with great respect sir, since I am only a PPL)


Of course automation would have prevented the accident. It does every day. But that wasn't an option since GS was AWOL.

Since you are relatively uncontaminated by auto-this/n/that, I contend that given a few manual landings in a 777 sim, you'd have a better-than-even chance of a completely successful manual landing at SFO 28L on a sunny day.

[sabenaboy]

Are you saying that automation contributed to the Asiana 214 crash??? It sure looks like an automated landing would have prevented the crash. You make my argument for me! (with great respect sir, since I am only a PPL)
Well, mross, in a way "automation" did certainly contribute to the Asiana crash. It's obvious that the pilots where relying on the auto-thrust system to keep their approach speed for them, while failing to monitor the airspeed. Much like what happened to the Turkish 737 in Amsterdam. The Turkish WAS on the ils with the automatics switched on, but still that didn't save them. On the contrary! The Turkish crew still had the excuse that the A/thr did not perform as designed, because of a failure of the radio altimeter system. Most probably, the final report in the Asiana crash will say that the crew mismanaged the a/thr system. No hardware failure involved.

I'm sure that if the Asiana crew had tried to fly the approach with a/thr off like in a Cessna, they would not have crashed! (Even if they were very rusty in flying without A/thr)

So, yes, in a way one could say that automation (or the overreliance on it) was a big contribution to the crash. We'll talk again when the final report is out.

You might be interested in what my former Sabena colleague, now Airbus' Jacques Drappier (http://halldale.com/files/halldale/attachments/Drappier.doc) has to say about the lack of basic piloting skills (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aa09-pilot-handling-skills-under-threat-says-airbus-331991/).

[mross]

It's a mistake to blame the automation! The auto throttle was effectively off (wrong mode). This was the pilots' fault. The automation did not fail. It only failed to do what was expected. (Of course the investigation may tell us a lot that we don't know yet) but we are on this website to idly speculate - well I am anyway :8 and also to learn from pilots who are well informed.

I do accept that too much automation will dilute pilots' flying skills but I don't agree that automation is to blame for this accident. It is obviously risky to fly in mixed mode when it is not well understood (again this is speculation).

[Ian W]

Kefuddle

Watching a UAV land is one of the most comical sights aviation has to offer.

Laugh away at this carrier landing then:
First Arrested Landing of a Tailless Unmanned Aircraft Aboard an Aircraft Carrier | UAS VISION (http://www.uasvision.com/2013/07/12/first-arrested-landing-of-a-tailless-unmanned-aircraft-aboard-an-aircraft-carrierx-47b-arested-landin/)

UAS have come a long way. There are now several pilot optional UAS as well such as 'Little Bird'

[grounded27]

Just an update for those of you who have not caught the news the X47b a drone with a 60+ foot wingspan has taken off and landed on a carrier. Manned military flight is about to end, soon. F4 Phantoms are being turned into drones to aid in training with weapons systems (we are automating them just to shoot them down). The reliability of UAV craft is getting much better, public perception of the ability to land on a carrier will certainly increase confidence as they are marketed to the civil sector..............Ian beat me to it.

[DozyWannabe]

The original post highlights a (quite common) lack of understanding when it comes to the differentiation between automation (i.e. autopilot/FMS) and modern flight control architecture with things like flight envelope protection.

Automation is for the most part either on or off, and will not "correct" a pilot when engaged, because the pilot has delegated control to the automation. Envelope protection and the like is a different matter entirely, and only enters into the equation extremely rarely.

[Lonewolf_50]

Automation vs Seat-of-the-pants-flying

I'd like to point out to our OP that he might want to learn a few things about flying before making such a post, or such a title.

The thread is headed by a false dichotomy.

Seat-of-the-pants flying can get you killed whether you have automation or not. Death spiral in IMC flying due to failure to have an instrument scan working, or the correct instruments available for IMC flying, has nothing to do with automation, or its lack. RIP JFK's son.

Automation can kill you if you don't know how it works and make an incorrect choice, regardless of what flight regime you are in.

If the tension you wish to explore is between hand flying and automation, fine.

Seat of the pants is THE WRONG TERM to use here. Use of an integrated scan is what professional pilots apply when hand flying.

That is all.

[DozyWannabe]

Seat of the pants is THE WRONG TERM to use here. Use of an integrated scan is what professional pilots apply when hand flying.

Exactly. I kept my input regarding the OP to the technical side in the hope that a pilot such as yourself would point this out. Nice one. :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Settle troops. The intent of the OP is pretty obvious. ;)

Actually, I find those who are good at seat-of-the-pants flying produce the result best down final when the machine is pitching about and the autothrottle is working hard (or it's out). Immediately reacting when you feel the @rse falling out of the aircraft instead waiting for the sight picture to change always produces a better outcome.

[Lonewolf_50]

Agreed. That "sense" comes with practice. ;)

[mross]

By seat-of-the-pants-flying I meant flying using the feel of the controls to tell you what the aircraft is doing - the force feedback from the stick and pedals and the noise of the engine and airflow and the little clues that the early pilots used; the guys and gals who flew with no instruments. I have only flown little Cessnas but I do have a license! I've done a few cross-wind landings and a spin recovery so I think I know a little about the basics. Of course, as I admit, I know nothing compared to the professionals on here but quite a lot compared to some wannabe's.

"the intent of the OP is pretty obvious ;)" not sure what you mean Capn Bloggs
- I only intended to debate aviation, I did not intend to rile anybody and apologise if I have offended anyone. I did say, 'as devil's advocate' meaning that I take a position with the purpose of debating.

[DozyWannabe]

By seat-of-the-pants-flying I meant flying using the feel of the controls to tell you what the aircraft is doing - the force feedback from the stick and pedals and the noise of the engine and airflow and the little clues that the early pilots used; the guys and gals who flew with no instruments. I have only flown little Cessnas but I do have a license!

Right, but one thing to be clear on is that light aircraft like your Cessna will have direct cable control to the flight surfaces. Jet airliners are a little different in that older short-haul types like the B737 and DC9/MD-80 will have hydraulic assist with cable backup and larger widebodies such as the B747, DC-10 and A300 as well as newer narrowbodies like the B757 are all-hydraulic. Nevertheless all of them have an "artificial feel" system which approximates and translates the forces on the flight surfaces to the flight controls.

Boeing's FBW system uses computerised force-feedback algorithms to provide artificial feel on the B777 and B787, and Airbus's FBW system uses passive spring feedback which is not linked to the surfaces in any way.

Therefore in a technical sense, control feedback on airliners is usually at one remove from what the flight surfaces are actually doing. Which is why a holistic approach using all the information available to a pilot, with an integrated scan paramount, is likely to get the best results.

I may be a wannabe, but I'm savvy enough to know that your pants (or more precisely your inner ear and nervous system) are more likely to lie to you about your situation than your instruments are.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi DozyWannabe,
control feedback on airliners is usually at one remove from what the flight surfaces are actually doing
Only true for Airbus FBW.

On Airbus you select a rate (as you remind me from time to time).
On Boeing you select a flight surface displacement.

[DozyWannabe]

Hi rrr,

I meant in a physical or mechanical sense - which applies to all the types I listed. Whether electro-mechanical or digital, artificial feel is just that - artificial.

[EDIT : Which is to say that on most jetliners with "conventional" controls, flight surface feedback is mitigated by the artificial feel system and therefore at one remove. Airbus's FBW system, as I said, uses passive spring feel and dispenses with flight surface feedback entirely. ]

[RAT 5]

Ref: seat of the pants. I take this to mean being sensitive to the g sensation of flying. I'm still amazed by pilots who can't sense this. You're looking out of the window on finals and you hit a thermal and feel the a/c ballooning. By instinct you correct the attitude to stop the balloon and adjust thrust to maintain speed, just a tad. Now one thing is pretty certain is that if you fly into a thermal, and it's not too close to TDZ, i.e. you are at some height on finals, then you are going to fly out of it and the a/c will sink there after. Not only are you fore-warned, but you should feel the world falling out of your a/c and 'adjust' attitude and thrust just a tad to resist mother nature.
It doesn't happen that good. If the automatics are in it is masked, if they are disconnected their bum is not connected to the a/c not their brain. They follow the speed loss/gain rather than pre-empt it.
Solution: Change the selection criteria for todays pilots, perhaps? Are the correct senses and skills being assessed?

[Chronic Snoozer]

How ironic is it that Hollywood generally would have you believe that no matter how advanced technology gets, nothing beats the seat of the pants ability of a crusty old dinosaur or hot shot ala Star Wars/Space Cowboys/Flight etc

So why automate to such a degree? Its an industry driven by accountants and engineers.

As an aside, the need for a human operator within the cockpit will probably exist until all processes of air travel becomes fully automated.

[mross]

"Envelope protection and the like is a different matter entirely, and only enters into the equation extremely rarely."

How can you sure of this? Meaning how do you (DozyWannabe) know when the protection has limited the effect of the pilots input?

I agree with all you said in post 43. And thank you for not rising to my little jibe :)

[Capn Bloggs]

How can you sure of this? Meaning how do you know when the protection has limited the effect of the pilots input?

It's pretty :mad: obvious: if you're pulling like :mad: and the thing doesn't stall, you try to bank to 60° and the thing won't do it, you end up in the 30° dive with the speed rocketing towards the barber pole the power comes off and the nose comes up by itself...

[mross]

Sir, I'm sure YOU know! I was asking how DozyWannabe claims to know that the automation/envelope protection rarely cuts in.

[VinRouge]

There are already 'planes without pilots. Care to have a look at the loss statistics for military drones? Put simply, there is a hell of a long way to go before such technology is implemented in commercial aviation. It is very much disputable that there will be airliners withouts pilots within 20 years. In fact, I'd say it's almost a nailed on certainty that there won't be.

There are reasons for this though. Modern UAVs by and large are single engine and are not certified with the levels of redundancy exhibited by transport category aircraft. UAVs don't bother with systems such as anti-icing and de-icing and by and large still have a human operator to land them (Predator is landed on site and is not autoland) and its for these reasons the loss rate is higher.

Do I see completely autonomous transport cat aircraft in the mid-term? No. I can imagine a single pilot operator though, sat in first, on some pretty hideous crew duty days who can step in if there is multiple system failure. We wont see the step straight over to no pilots, but there will be an intermediate step whilst the concept is proven and issues shaken out imho.

[Teldorserious]

Wouldn't surprise to see freight flown as UAVS in the future. Whatever the case, any pilot who pretends that the boxes won't break, hoping he will never have to hand fly or mentally navigate is beyond contempt in my book and is part of that special crowd of pilot who 'networks' for a seat in a plane, in the hopes that sitting in a plane, with a title of 'pilot' suffices to all his friends that he actually is one.

[deptrai]

FedEx-founder Fred Smith posted this in 2009:

Unmanned cargo freighters have lots of advantages for FedEx: safer, cheaper, and much larger capacity. The ideal form is the 'blended wing.' That design doesn't make a clear a distinction between wings and body, so almost all the interior of both can be used for cargo. The result is that the price premium for air over sea would fall from 10x to 2X (with all the speed advantages of air). and

the key thing is having NO people on board, not even as backup. A single person in the craft requires a completely different design, along with radically different economics and logistics. The efficiencies come with 100% robotic operation.What he says mostly makes sense to me (my biggest doubt at this point is that he claims it will be "safer", that remains to be proven, but no human pilots on board may well be safer in terms of loss of human lives, if the things can manage to avoid crashing into humans on the ground and in other airplanes). It's also interesting to note that the unmanned X-47B which just completed first carrier landings is a blended wing design.

In response to VinRouge: following Smith's line of thinking, I'm not sure if we will see single pilot operated transport category cargo aircraft first. It's not a necessary intermediate step to what he wants. A more likely evolution, as I see it, would be to let Boeing gather experience with the Phantom Ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Phantom_Ray), maybe they'll even win the contract for the US Navy UCLASS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_Carrier-Launched_Surveillance_and_Strike_program) and then, much later, when the military technology matures, start to work with them to look at the feasibility of larger civil cargo UAVs.

You also mentioned that UAVs [...] by and large still have a human operator to land them (Predator is landed on site and is not autoland)This may be true right now, but it will change. Carrier-based UAVs use task based automation, including autoland, mainly because there is no current datalink technology which is fast and powerful enough to allow something as precise as a carrier landing to be remote controlled, and autoland on the other hand is known technology.

But for civil aviation this is not even at the stage of long term strategic planning, but merely a visionary concept. Four years later, we're not really much closer to Fred Smith's aspirational idea. It will no doubt happen, that's not the question. The question is when? There I agree with previous posters, it will take at least two decades, most likely longer, with a caveat that it's hard to predict anything, particularly the future.

Just applying military experience to design civil UAVs won't be enough, there's many civil aviation specific issues that will need to be addressed. Military UAVs mostly operate in a very different kind of airspace (think of separation and control). Civilian (partly) autonomous/automated UAV would need much better sense-and-avoid technology, eg the ability to interpret video images, radar, as well as transponder/ADS-B data, to maintain separation. Also, the military owns and operates satellites and has huge network bandwidth at it's fingertips which can relay images to the ground with short latency. Civilian/Commercial UAV operators would have to buy bandwidth, and even compete for the spectrum with other uses if they want to t/x huge amounts of data to allow for remote control. And finally you also need FAA to certify all this new technology which could easily add 20 years alone...

[DozyWannabe]

How can you sure of this? Meaning how do you (DozyWannabe) know when the protection has limited the effect of the pilots input?

Don't take it from me - let Bruce Dickinson show you:
Bruce Dickinson flies the A320 - YouTube

Now, this being recorded for a mainstream tv programme, Bruce does leave out a few key points - chief among which is that the Normal Law hard protections are not just there to guard against mistakes, but also allow the pilot to execute evasive manoeuvres at the full extent of the control movement without overstressing the airframe.

The reason I said the hard protections rarely come into play is also illustrated in the video. Bruce (at the time an Astraeus B757 Captain - in fact he was F/O on a flight out to Barcelona that I took with the missus) demonstrates that in normal circumstances he would not execute a bank manoeuvre much past 25 degrees. Bank protection only kicks in at 67 degrees, so if we take his own limit as a reasonable one for a line pilot then you're not going to see that part of the protection come into play very often.

Alpha Prot and Alpha Floor are likewise only designed to come into play when at risk of stalling, and again - on a day-to-day basis we're talking about very rare occurrences, are we not?

[mross]

You have misunderstood my question. I know what the envelope protection does. I was asking, if a pilot somewhere in the world asks the aircraft to go outside the envelope and the protection becomes active, how would you or I ever know? We likely would not read about it. I suppose the airline would know - from the flight data recorders.

[sabenaboy]

mross,

There's something called FDM in the aviation industry: Flight Data Monitoring (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flight+data+monitoring)!

Pilots in most companies will get invited to "Tea and biscuits" with the "Chief pilot" when he/she significantly exceeds normal flight parameters, without even getting close to flight envelope protection!

When a pilot messes up so badly that flight envelope protection has to kick in, it will be known! And yes, this will happen only very rarely!

Of course, not all of these very rare occurrences will make it to the press, and you and I might not hear of it. The simple fact that reaching the flight envelope protection is very unlikely, is, by logic, enough to say that these events occur only very rarely. Back to topic now, please.

[mross]

There's something called FDM in the aviation industry: Flight Data Monitoring!

Yes, we know, it's called many other things too.....

Flight Data Monitoring (FDM), Operational Flight Data Monitoring (OFDM), Flight Operations Management (FOM), Daily Flight Operations Monitoring (DFOM), Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA), Flight Operations Data Assurance (FODA), Maintenance Operations Quality Assurance (MOQA).

[CONF iture]

I was asking, if a pilot somewhere in the world asks the aircraft to go outside the envelope and the protection becomes active, how would you or I ever know? We likely would not read about it. I suppose the airline would know - from the flight data recorders.
In Perpignan, looking at the elevator trace, the final resource has been limited by something, most probably the vertical acceleration ... But the BEA has never published that data ...

[Clandestino]

The Turkish crew still had the excuse that the A/thr did not perform as designed, because of a failure of the radio altimeter system.Actually, ATHR performed as designed, retarding the throttles on ground. How did it "know" it was on ground? In computer logic; if RA is zero, then one has to be. It was not outright failure of radalt, it kept emitting realistic value, which had no semblance to actual, it's what we call "unreliable".

You can not teach today's computers to deal with unreliables. It takes intelligence to tackle them and success is not guaranteed.

Immediately reacting when you feel the @rse falling out of the aircraft instead waiting for the sight picture to change always produces a better outcome. Except in rare cases where those feeling their nether regions falling out are actually victims of somatogravic illusion.

Ref: seat of the pants. I take this to mean being sensitive to the g sensation of flying. I'm still amazed by pilots who can't sense this.I'm still amused by PPRuNers seriously suggesting that personal g feel is something that can be used to fly transport aeroplane successfully.


How ironic is it that Hollywood generally would have you believe that no matter how advanced technology gets, nothing beats the seat of the pants ability of a crusty old dinosaur or hot shot ala Star Wars/Space Cowboys/Flight etc. So why automate to such a degree?Discrepancy between Hollywood movies and real world is part of the answer.

How can you sure of this?
Yes, we know, it's called many other things too.....

Flight Data Monitoring (FDM), Operational Flight Data Monitoring (OFDM),

You have answered your own question, lest you just know the names for it and are unaware what it means.

Meaning how do you (DozyWannabe) know when the protection has limited the effect of the pilots input? He had read and understood them manuals.

I know what the envelope protection does.:confused: What was the point of previous question, then?

In Perpignan, looking at the elevator trace, the final resource has been limited by something, most probably the vertical acceleration ... But the BEA has never published that data ... Parbleu! Scandaleuse! We should self-righteously and indignantly reject the report on shoddily maintained and lousily test flown 320 because there is no G trace in published FDR readouts. :E

[mross]

Did you read post 1?

What I am interested in is how many times FBW automation intervenes and stops the pilot from making errors, and comparing this to the more well known cases where the pilot has had to prevent the automation doing something to hazard the aircraft. I'm not asking how does a skilled ATPL knows when the automation is limiting his input's affect on the a/c. I am asking, how do we, joe public, know how many times the FBW has prevented pilot error?

[scotbill]

I'm still amused by PPRuNers seriously suggesting that personal g feel is something that can be used to fly transport aeroplane successfully.
Don't know what your experience is but anyone who spent any significant time operating in extreme windy environments such as the Highlands and Islands of Scotland probably has a very refined personal g feel.

It pays off particularly in windshear situations where there have been dramatic power changes and has saved my personal bacon on big aeroplanes on several occasions..

Bet it works just as well on your smarter-than-the-average-pilot Airbus.

[CONF iture]

Parbleu! Scandaleuse! We should self-righteously and indignantly reject the report on shoddily maintained and lousily test flown 320 because there is no G trace in published FDR readouts.
No, those are accepted facts, but we see a partial report where all the story is not told. Anything that could tarnish the Airbus concept has to be ignored. The BEA will comply.

[RAT 5]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RAT 5
Ref: seat of the pants. I take this to mean being sensitive to the g sensation of flying. I'm still amazed by pilots who can't sense this.
I'm still amused by PPRuNers seriously suggesting that personal g feel is something that can be used to fly transport aeroplane successfully.

I am also a paraglider pilot. I can & I do. It has saved me on a few occasions where the world was about to fall out of the aeroplane just at the start of the flare, and when on finals in a very hot Spain a combination of orographic updraft amplified by thermals, or each on there own, was trying to fling me skywards above the glide path. Even more interesting on a pure visual. It teaches you to be proactive and lead/control the machine rather than be reactive and be led by it. From the ground I've watch very large a/c being tossed around on a very active thermal day. Quite educational and spectacular.

[cucuotto]

Flying an airplane, automation or not automation, in the safest way possible requires exceptional skills. Flying an airplane from A to B with a statistically acceptable risk requires almost zero skills. Unfortunately there are not enough exceptionally skilled pilots around.People that should stay well clear from a cockpit, thanks to various converging and inexplicable contingencies , find themselves inside of it with no real merit or quality if not an apparently sufficient proficiency. Unfortunately lack of basic coordination, of psycho motive intelligence, can only be partly offset by luck and automation and when either of the two turns its back... A new generation of pilots with no skill has been produced by cadet programs whose selections process were based not strictly on pertinent aviation qualities but more on psychological profiling, potential employee loyalty , docility and ease of domestication , plus often a series of non aviation related educational parameters and last but not least ..connections.
Another even worst part of this generation of pilots just bought there way into the cockpit of an airliner without even paying their due in the incredible school that is general aviation. Automation cannot cope at times..

[Clandestino]

I am asking, how do we, joe public, know how many times the FBW has prevented pilot error? Certain Joe Public can't know that. Not because it is some top secret but because our poor Joe was totally unable to understand what DozyWannabe and Sabenaboy wrote. Talking about hiding the answer in plain sight.

How many times? Not many. Then why do we have it? Because unprotected types are still performing unintentional aerobatic maneuvers interrupted by ground every couple of years.

Don't know what your experience is but anyone who spent any significant time operating in extreme windy environments such as the Highlands and Islands of Scotland probably has a very refined personal g feel.
How many full IFR twin (or more) turbined transport category aeroplanes are operating the Highlands and Islands of Scotland? Is there a photo of Triple seven roaring down the Mach Loop?

G feel is very fine for folks flying with constant outside reference. Not so for IFR pilots in IMC.

It pays off particularly in windshear situations where there have been dramatic power changes and has saved my personal bacon on big aeroplanes on several occasions..You have flown through windshear on big aeroplanes by feel? :eek: My, if it is so good technique, it should be put in training manuals instead of "watch your attitude, watch your speed and beware of illusions" which is current party line.

Bet it works just as well on your smarter-than-the-average-pilot Airbus. It just doesn't work on anything when look through the windshield doesn't help in determining which way is up.

I am also a paraglider pilot. I can & I do. Do what? Fly your paraglider on instruments? Everything you describe afterwards happens if not in legal VMC, then at least with significant outside visual reference!

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
Immediately reacting when you feel the @rse falling out of the aircraft instead waiting for the sight picture to change always produces a better outcome.

Except in rare cases where those feeling their nether regions falling out are actually victims of somatogravic illusion.

Another typical Prune rant by Clandestino. Must have just got back from a long trip.

I was obviously talking about flying down final and landing! Did you read the bit about "sight picture" ie looking out the window? When has there ever been an SI event then? :cool:

[DozyWannabe]

What I am interested in is how many times FBW automation intervenes and stops the pilot from making errors, and comparing this to the more well known cases where the pilot has had to prevent the automation doing something to hazard the aircraft.

And what I've been trying to tell you is that FBW and automation are two separate concepts.

Now, in these modern days of QARs and FOQA etc., you can be sure that if any of the protections were triggered they would be logged, and the airline would have to deal with it.

[joema]

"FBW and automation are two separate concepts."

Thank you for trying to make this clear, including your other post: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/519746-automation-vs-seat-pants-flying-talking-devils-advocate-so-no-abuse-plea-2.html#post7960740

This is very commonly misunderstood. In the book "The Rio/Paris Crash: Air France 447" by Roger Rapoport, he frequently confuses the two concepts -- and that in a book dedicated to analyzing that crash!

It is exactly as you said: envelope protection and automation (whether autopilot or FMS) are two different things.

You can have automation without envelope protection, as was typical for years. Likewise you can have envelope protection without automation -- you could manually hand-fly an Airbus and never engage any autoflight system.

In some cases there is a loose connection between the two. On Airbus, autothrust may automatically engage to protect alpha floor. Likewise in cases like AF 447 an anomalous event can simultaneously disengage both autopilot and envelope protection. However they are two different things, coincidentally connected by the same event.

Admittedly the aerospace community does not universally adhere to this distinction in terminology. NASA refers to the space shuttle's fly-by-wire system as a "digital autopilot", even when being hand flown.

[DozyWannabe]

In Perpignan, looking at the elevator trace, the final resource has been limited by something, most probably the vertical acceleration ... But the BEA has never published that data ...

Unless the data was relevant to the accident sequence (which in this case it probably was not) then there was no need to delve into that behaviour, and thus there was no need to publish. The BEA exist to investigate accidents, not to reverse-engineer every aspect of the aircraft.

[barit1]

Unless the data was relevant to the accident sequence (which in this case it probably was not) then there was no need to delve into that behaviour, and thus there was no need to publish. The BEA exist to investigate accidents, not to reverse-engineer every aspect of the aircraft.

If an accident report does not at least touch upon all likely causes, even if some are unresolved, then I regard said report as "lightweight". :uhoh:

[DozyWannabe]

@barit1 - I'm going from memory here, but I think the trace to which CONF iture is referring occurs well after the accident sequence is established. I'd have to dig up the report again to be sure, but given the usual way BEA reports are written I'd expect there to be some reference to the trace, and why it was excluded.

As an aside, I note that a lot of commenters on the Dubai UPS 747F report are holding it up as exemplary, and indeed it is very thorough. However I also note that the only traces in the report itself consist of a single combined graph on the final page. Now that's perfectly reasonable as it contains all the relevant data - but it does cause me to question the apparent double standard at work, when some are censuring the AF447 report, which had more complete traces over several pages and a whole appendix, as being somehow incomplete.

[jandakotcruiser]

At simple airfields without RNP1or PRNAV procedures, fly manually without the automatics for all you want...certainly strongly encouraged. However trying to fly PRNAV SIDs and STARs without the automatics may get you invited for tea & bikkies with the CP as the FDM/FOQA snoop dogs are forever on the prowl should you come close to exceeding the tolerances inherent in those precision procedures.

[mross]

FBW and automation are two separate concepts.

This is nonsense. FBW relies heavily on automation. You cannot separate them.

In level flight with zero sidestick input the flight surfaces are still moving to maintain 1g - This is automation!!!

[FCeng84]

I applaud the recent entries in this thread making the case that FBW and Automation are two different concepts. I would like to add a third term: augmentation. Here are the definitions of these three plus protection that I use. I have found these to be very helpful in explaining the evolution of and difference between airplane control systems.

Fly-By-Wire (FBW): This refers to the connection between pilot input and control surface motion as being other than a mechanical link. An airplane configured with electric sensors on the pilot's controls (sensing either force or position) and control surface positions commanded proportional to those pilot control positions has a FBW control system. The surfaces go where the pilot commands them such that the pilot to control surface linkage behaves the same as if mechanical linkages between the two were used. Most FBW control system are more complex than this, but strictly speaking this simple example qualifies as FBW.

Augmentation: This refers to the motion of the control surfaces being more than just a reflection of the pilot's controller positions. Yaw dampers are an example of early augmentation wherein the rudder command is the sum of the pilot command via the rudder pedals and the control system yaw damper command. Note that for this example, augmentation was introduced without FBW. More recent examples of airplanes with high degrees of augmentation are the A320 and later Airbus designs and the B777 and later Boeing designs. For these airplanes maneuver demand control is provided in one or more axis such that the pilot's controller position commands a maneuver (e.g., pitch rate, roll rate, sideslip angle) rather than a direct surface position or an addative increment in surface position. Augmentation allows for closed-loop (i.e., control system active) handling qualities to be different from those of the bare airplane. This allows for the airplane configuration to be optimized in the direction of improved performance at the expense of open-loop (or unaugmented) handling qualities. The control system augmentation enables configuration features that improve performance.

Protection: This refers to features of the control system that reduce the likelihood of operating near or beyond edges of the flight envelope that present degradation in airplane performance and/or controllability. Protection functions come in many forms. Some such as stick shakers and nudgers provide pilot awareness. Others such as angle-of-attack or bank angle limiters provide hard limits that the pilots are not able to command beyond. Similar to early examples of augmentation, early protection functions were introduced without FBW. The more elaborate protection functions found in recent airplane models require FBW in order to allow for control surface motions that differ significantly from the pilot control positions as observed on the flight deck.

Automation: This refers to the basic concepts of autopilot and autothrottle. With automation engaged, the pilot can go hand's off for extended periods of time. Autopilots and autothrottles were introduced to commercial airplanes long before FBW. For these systems the autopilot effectively moved the pilot's flight deck controls to provide commands to the surfaces and the engines in the manner that the pilot would when flying manually. With the introduction of FBW where there is no mechanical linkage between pilot controls and the surfaces or the engines it is possible to implement automation without motion of the pilot's controls. Airbus has chosen this simpler route such that the pilots controls are not driven to show autopilot and autothrottle commands when those automation functions are engaged. Boeing has chosen to actively back-drive the pilot controls when automation is engaged as a means of providing situational awareness to the flight deck crew as to what inputs the autopilot and autothrottle are making to the airplane.


I hope that these definitions help provide clarity to further discussions within this and other PPRUNE threads.

[DozyWannabe]

Yaw dampers are an example of early augmentation wherein the rudder command is the sum of the pilot command via the rudder pedals and the control system yaw damper command.

Absolutely correct. In fact it goes back even earlier to pure electro-mechanical devices such as the aileron/elevator boost in the '50s-era propliners. Congrats on a succinct, concise and informative post, that I may well squirrel away for later use myself!

mross - I hate to say it, but you're well off-base here.

[CONF iture]

Unless the data was relevant to the accident sequence (which in this case it probably was not) then there was no need to delve into that behaviour, and thus there was no need to publish. The BEA exist to investigate accidents, not to reverse-engineer every aspect of the aircraft.
As the elevators did not follow the pilot request, there must be a reason. That's the job of the BEA to detail that reason.

[DozyWannabe]

As the elevators did not follow the pilot request, there must be a reason. That's the job of the BEA to detail that reason.

No, it's the job of the BEA to ascertain the factors relevant to the accident sequence, and the report they produce will focus primarily on those. In this case, a discrepancy in surface deflection versus command at a point in the sequence when the flight control system is already compromised - and as such would have no bearing on the outcome - is likely to be a waste of effort. Therefore they note the discrepancy and leave it at that.

Look at the UPS 747F report. The investigators can say that whatever the fire and heat were doing to the control junctions was affecting the control surface response in terms of control input versus surface deflection, but they don't have sufficient data to say precisely what the damage was. Because in that case it was directly relevant to the loss-of-control sequence they consider scenarios, but all those scenarios are speculation.

[CONF iture]

No, it's the job of the BEA to ascertain the factors relevant to the accident sequence, and the report they produce will focus primarily on those. In this case, a discrepancy in surface deflection versus command at a point in the sequence when the flight control system is already compromised - and as such would have no bearing on the outcome - is likely to be a waste of effort. Therefore they note the discrepancy and leave it at that.
Negative - you don't keep silent on such important flight control characteristic, unless you want to stick to a partial story.
Pulling one more G was maybe all it took to come back home ... ?

[DozyWannabe]

Upon further checking, it's all down in the report.

Position of the elevator in the last seconds

From 15 h 46 min 00 s and until the end of the flight, the position of the
Captain’s sidestick was at the pitch-up stop with a median transitional position
of one second at 15 h 46 min 02 s. At the same time, the elevator position
remained in a nose-down position.

Two factors can explain this phenomenon while the law in the longitudinal
axis is a load factor law (the sidestick at the stop commands a normal load
factor of 2 g):
- A rapid increase in the pitch is offset by the flight control law,
- A load factor higher than the value commanded leads to a nose-down
movement of the elevator.

Further reading of the report indicates that the aircraft was in Abnormal Attitude Law (in which longitudinal/pitch is determined by load factor) at this point, not Direct.

Also, judging by the flightpath an extra 1G would have done them no good at all.

[Centaurus]

22 July 2013 Aviation Week and Space Technology has published an editorial called "Ending Automation Addiction"

One excerpt states; The automation dependency paradigm must be changed now. Crews must be trained to remain mentally engaged and, at low altitudes, anytime they wonder "what's it doing now?" the response should be to turn automation off and fly by hand.

Well, we saw the disaster of Asiana 777 on a visual approach where the pilots switched to hand flying and promptly crashed.

Boeing, on the other hand in its flight crew training manuals state: .."reducing the level of automation as far as manual flight may be necessary to ensure proper control of the airplane is maintained. The pilot should attempt to restore higher levels of automation only after aircraft control is assured".

It seems to me that Boeing are only playing lip service to the need for keeping up manual flying skills since in that last paragraph they quickly encourage the pilot to re-engage the automatics.

The only way to teach today's pilots not to be frightened of hand flying is to ensure that type rating training in simulators starts off by teaching pilots how to fly manually without flight directors and auto-throttles for the first few sessions before automatics are introduced. After that, recurrent training in the simulator should include a high proportion of manual raw data flying.

There is little hope that airlines will ever seriously permit their pilots to hand fly meaningfully on revenue flights; especially in IMC. By that I mean FD off using normal manual flying techniques. Hand flying focusing exclusively on keeping the flight director needles centred does little to improve manual or instrument flying skills.

That being so, simulators must be used increasingly for the purpose of keeping proficient in the task. The accident record of crashes caused in the end, by automation dependency, has demonstrated the folly of closing eyes to the problem described in the Aviation Week editorial and in numerous well researched studies on the subject of automation addiction.

[vilas]

As I understood flying all these years manual flying you make things happen, auto flight watch the things you want happen. Nobody puts AP on and goes to sleep. How can you not monitor speed? Auotomation does not mean you don't scan. SFO type incidents cannot happen in isolation. These are examples of pilots slowly loosing their scan over the years. Other than manual control inputs everything else remains same. Unless offcourse there was extreme fatigue and sleepiness then anything is possible.

[Capn Bloggs]

Vilas, we lose our scanning skill because we are not connected physically to the machine that is responding to our inputs. To hand fly, you must scan, because if you don't, the aeroplane doesn't fly properly. With the autopilot in, there is no need to scan as in 99% of the time the aeroplane does it for you. Try as you might, you simply cannot keep up scanning proficiency if you aren't actually doing something with your hands occasionally/regularly.

More accidents of this nature haven't happened IMO because the big majority of us have, to a degree, had a background in handflying. As the Children of the Magenta become more prevalent throughout the industry and guys like Bubbers become extinct :), we'll see more of these types of prangs unless we get hand flying time again. Humans are good doers, not monitors, apparently.

You yourself hit the nail on the head when you said:

These are examples of pilots slowly loosing their scan over the years. Other than manual control inputs everything else remains same.

[Tipsy Barossa]

At simple airfields without RNP1or PRNAV procedures, fly manually without the automatics for all you want...certainly strongly encouraged. However trying to fly PRNAV SIDs and STARs without the automatics may get you invited for tea & bikkies with the CP as the FDM/FOQA snoop dogs are forever on the prowl should you come close to exceeding the tolerances inherent in those precision procedures.

Many suns ago after an 18 hour layover ( due to inbound delay ) at EDDF, I absentmindedly let the F/O fly the Tobak departure manually out of RWY 25R. Because of very strong crosswinds turning very strong tailwind as we passed 1000 ft, we were a little slow in establishing the precise ground track required despite his best efforts with my promptings. We were reported by some " watchers " who complained about our " trangression " over their hallowed grounds.

A month later I was hauled up for some lousy coffee with the CP. No, no noise monitoring alarms were triggered but the nasty letter by deutschland ATC based on the " watchers " complaints had me put in the sim to do tobak departures out of EDDF...advise from CP and sim instructor: use the automatics! Boy, at that time it the tobak departures weren't even PRNAV! go figure..........

[BARKINGMAD]

Centaurus;

"The only way to teach today's pilots not to be frightened of hand flying is to ensure that type rating training in simulators starts off by teaching pilots how to fly manually without flight directors and auto-throttles for the first few sessions before automatics are introduced. After that, recurrent training in the simulator should include a high proportion of manual raw data flying."

Too many years ago I moved from Betty Windsors Flying Club to the awesome environment of the Bae146, having flown a B&W Artificial Horizon with the "W" symbol for the aircraft and the split horizon bar swimming around it, for 16 years, props and jets.

Initial sim training proved a problem, not that I couldn't fly on instruments, but that I was expected to program and follow the F/D bars, at all times, ab initio.

During the initial conversion session, I turned OFF the F/D bars with the comment that it was extra loading to program and follow them.

That airline's type chief trainer went apoplectic, froze the "box" and insisted I follow the magenta spider faithfully as no other course of action would be tolerated!!

Needless to say the subsequent details were handicapped by this slavish "attitude" (no pun intended!) and it was with greater effort and angst that I finally got onto the line.

And that was in 1987..............................?!

Now over a quarter of a century flying nice blue/brown A/Is, I still find myself "flying through the bars" and apologise to the child of magenta beside me as it is obvious I'm not following the "spider"!

What chance now in the 21st century is there of reversing the "you must use all automatics" from day 1 mantra?? Unless the XAAs get the message soon that the basics have got to be mastered BEFORE the luxury of the fancy bits can be used, then I fear that the recent CFITs due to part or no automation will continue and we in these pages will continue to ask "how could THEY do that?".

And of course we are excluding the possibility of FATIGUE as a serious contributory factor....! :ugh:

[CONF iture]

Two factors can explain this phenomenon
Pretty vague from guys who have some data they're not ready to share ...
Is it embarrassing to tell the protection protected the aircraft first despite the last attempt the pilot made to have a chance to survive. Scrap the aircraft later on but let me have a chance to go home.

I don't blame Airbus for such protection, I blame the BEA for not detailing that sequence which is also part of the accident.

[bubbers44]

Thanks Capn B for the compliment, didn't expect it. As everybody knows I am a hand flyer and use automation to do the boring enroute flying. Departures and arrivals are hand flown unless weather requires otherwise. Most of my landings are visual approaches into airports like Tegucigalpa, Honduras so the FO gets to do the ILS into MIA if the short turn on allows it which it usually doesn't. Visuals are so easy and the instrument scan is a normal pilot duty so how some pilots can't land on a visual to SFO is puzzling. Automation dependency is my only answer.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

You said it was cultural differences in the other thread. Anyway, you're retired aren't you?

[RAT 5]

BarkingMad: I'm on your side in this. I believe that pilots should learn to fly the a/c first, then operate it. Sadly, especially with self-funded TQ courses, time is premium and the courses are minimum. The couple of extra sessions required to achieve the ideal are considered a not-effective cost nor necessary for the issue of a type rating.
I too fly through the bars and scan the basic performance data and try to encourage the same. The degree of success is varied depending on the attitude of the student. I once flew for an airline where the instructors were brutal in insisting the students "fly the flight director." Their scan was very poor. I then showed them how you can stall the a/c with centred F.D's and also fly into the ground with perfect F.D's. This woke them up, the students that is, sadly not the other instructors who continued their blinkered teachings.
Today I find the lack of scan still there, especially when A.P is in CMD. They watch the F.D's and say all is fine. They are doing no more than watching the A.P keep the F.D's centred. They have no idea what the a/c is in fact doing and are not monitoring it. A sad deadly great shame on the training environment.

[Clandestino]

With the autopilot in, there is no need to scan as in 99% of the time the aeroplane does it for you.

This is sarcasm, right?

[Capn Bloggs]

This is sarcasm, right?
Just the truth, sunshine. Take off your automation/Airbus sunglasses and try to understand why pilots can no longer fly aeroplanes.

[RAT 5]

With the autopilot in, there is no need to scan as in 99% of the time the aeroplane does it for you.

You hope. You still have to scan to ensure George is behaving himself. I know of various accidents where he went subtly AWOL and no-one realised until it was too late; or they did and then tried to solve the problem using the very same rogue who'd put them in the hole in the first place.

[Capn Bloggs]

Rat 5, please don't quote me out of context. Of course you should scan when in Autoflight. My words immediately before that quote were that if you are hand flying, you must scan otherwise you lose control every time. That is the difference. Scanning ability reduces the more autoflighting you do. That was my point.

[RAT 5]

C.Bloggs: My fault. I was following on from the Clandestino comment. I did not go back to your original comment and read the whole paragraph.

[john_tullamarine]

I suspect that Capt Bloggs' thrust is along the line that automation cripples, as opposed to those who employ automation to assist and improve performance .. may have considerable difficulty in monitoring the automatics successfully ?

Very much like a medical examination with a GP mate years ago while he was punching and pummelling my innards ... I made some irreverent and cheeky comment about automatics in that context and his response was along the lines that if he didn't practice his diagnostic skills regularly .. then he would lose them ... where have I heard a similar cry ?

I doubt that anyone is extolling a virtue to be had by handflying all the time. However, a level of commonsense dictates that the pilot needs to develop and maintain competence in both separately and in conjunction.

[Centaurus]

I doubt that anyone is extolling a virtue to be had by handflying all the time. However, a level of commonsense dictates that the pilot needs to develop and maintain competence in both separately and in conjunction

If only Regulators and airline operational managements would read this statement and apply it. Well put JT

[vilas]

J T
Some of the comments here and other threads are suggestive of that using automation only boys do and men don't. Some suggested that pilots fly better than modern autopilots. I find these comments do not represent reality. Otherwise RVSM, CAT3 and some other situations would not ask for AP use. Use of automatics is safer because it lets you monitor and comprehend overall picture. Afterall going from A to B safely has many other things than just flying manual approach. Just as accidents happen because of poor manual skills they also happen because of poor understanding and monitoring of automation. So one should hand fly to maintain the skill required and other times use automation.

[john_tullamarine]

Absolutely .. horses for courses.

One needs to be competent in stick and rudder.

One needs to be competent in the boxes.

One needs to be competent in managing a sensible mix of the two according to the needs of the moment.


The pilot who is a brilliant stick and rudder man is a danger if circumstances require, but he is not up to, the use of the boxes.

Likewise, the pilot who is a brilliant box man is a danger if circumstances require, but he is not up to, poling the beast in anger.


Safety, in this regard, is maximised if one uses - effectively - the appropriate mix of manual and automatics which might be useful in the circumstances ..


That some may prefer to do one over the other is merely a sideline consideration, I suggest ?

As to men and boys, the distinguishing characteristic there is only the price of their toys ...

[mross]

To the pilots who fly or have flown the big transports.

Could you maintain hand flying skills by simulator sessions alone? Is the simulator of today accurate enough? What are the shortfalls of the FFS? Apart from the obvious one that a FFS is not an aircraft!

[Ultra Glide]

Who is going to write the software that decides whether or not to abort? And whether or not to evacuate after the abort? Will they be held liable in court?

When the cabin is on fire who is going to decide if to land / ditch immediately or continue on further to an airport?

Who is going to decide what to do when the flight attendants "hear a funny noise" or see "something leaking from the wing"?

The auto-taxi system will also need to be able to detect debris, contamination etc. and the auto-takeoff system will need to be able to decide whether or not it's a good idea to actually take off when the weather conditions are changing rapidly, or when it gets a ding from the flight attendants that someone just got out of their seat and went to the toilet...

And on and on and on.

Pilotless will only be for passengerless until we invent a computer that can replace the human brain or a programmer who can foresee every possible scenario that could ever occur, which by definition he cannot because how would he know that he didn't think of something?

[Ultra Glide]

Mross, it would help to maintain your skills but it would not be ideal because you don't feel G's in the sim.

Also, I get sick using the visuals (the fake stuff out your window) in the sim because motion sickness is a disconnect between what your eyes and your inner ear tell you, which do not always agree in the sim, like when you're taxiing and you make 90 degree turns etc.

You can get enough practice, assuming you fly enough legs per month, hand flying on the line, EVEN with your flight director on IF you work the throttles manually.

[A37575]

Could you maintain hand flying skills by simulator sessions alone? Is the simulator of today accurate enough? What are the shortfalls of the FFS? Apart from the obvious one that a FFS is not an aircraft!

Believe me but if you do not have the skills to hand fly a fidelity compliant flight simulator then you sure are going to have a real problem flying the real thing. Regulators around the world accept that fidelity compliant simulators can be used for type ratings, instrument ratings, recurrent training. if a pilot is having trouble flying an ILS in a crosswind in a simulator then he will almost certainly run into the same trouble in the real thing.

So the answer to your question of could you maintain hand flying skills by simulator sessions alone, the answer is definitely yes. IMHO

[root]

Believe me but if you do not have the skills to hand fly a fidelity compliant flight simulator then you sure are going to have a real problem flying the real thing. Regulators around the world accept that fidelity compliant simulators can be used for type ratings, instrument ratings, recurrent training. if a pilot is having trouble flying an ILS in a crosswind in a simulator then he will almost certainly run into the same trouble in the real thing.

So the answer to your question of could you maintain hand flying skills by simulator sessions alone, the answer is definitely yes. IMHO

I have always found simulator flying to be more difficult than actual flying. In general, to me at least, the actual aircraft is much more stable than the sim.
The sim is fine for procedural training.

[john_tullamarine]

because you don't feel G's in the sim

737 endorsement was ZFT. First line training session with a pax load differed only in three major respects from the sim sessions ..

(a) the aircraft was considerably easier to fly

(b) the aircraft visuals were far better and should be mandated for the sim

(c) it was much more fun

In every sim session, after a few minutes, I was sufficiently immersed in the doing to have difficulty distinguishing it from the aircraft IMC. Visual sim flight was always a tad surreal.

Perhaps that was just a reflection of my seat of the pants incompetence ?

[PJ2]

John - 100% agree with your comments re the sim vs. the airplane.

The last transition course I had with the airborne component was on the L1011 (mid-80's) and we did circuits for four of the best-'funnest' hours of my career. From then on, simulators were good enough to certify pilots on-type without the airborne work.

For others wondering about this idea, six-axis (full motion) simulators have been used for thirty years + for airplane transition courses to save airlines money by not flying the real thing. It's also a lot safer practising the necessary engine-out procedures and all other system abnormalities that one can do in a simulator but never in an airplane.

But I would never look to simulators to "maintain" flying skills. A simulator is a training tool - mainly for procedures, (CAT II/III, engine-out, system failures, LOFT work etc). It is no substitute for a real aircraft and should never be looked upon, especially by regulators and accountants, as a suitable for such work.

Flying and thinking like a pilot cannot be learned in a simulator. It can only hone and replenish already-learnt skills.

A simulator only reaches its full potential in teaching and training when one is already a pilot and already skilled at thinking and handling and stayin' alive when the real airplane is trying to kill you.

[RAT 5]

Had a chat with an HOT about visuals. His airline is very restrictive about them, although he wouldn't admit it. He says that the G/A's spike on CAVOK days, so better not to let the chaps do them; they cost time & money. He'd love to spend more time to bring manual flying and visual approaches up to scratch, but there is no spare sim time or money. With so many pilots from differing backgrounds spread all over the network there is no possible over-sight. Solution? Create a corps of button-pushing SOP monkeys. Safer & cheaper. I can understand Flt OPs thinking, but it is very sad. Will it reap rewards? We won't know until there is a problem of significance. There have been many near misses, but just that.

[vilas]

We have to accept that civil aviation is a commercial activity. Present global economic mess Airlines are struggling to survive. They do not have funds to cater for every pilot's idea of safety.If they don't make profit even the best pilot goes home. So operating procedures have to cater for not only safety but economics as well.

[Capn Bloggs]

We have to accept that civil aviation is a commercial activity.
That is precisely why the regulators have to step in and mandate raw data/handflying in the SIM. Then all operators will be on a level playing field.

The other point is, do you really think that AF or Asiana would have ignored pre-warnings about the accidents they had if they'd got them?

"Dear CEO, in 12 months your pilots are going to crash an A330 because they couldn't get out of a stall. What are to going to do about preventing that?".

"OK, every SIM session let's get our pilots to do some handflying and stall and UA recoveries, 15 minutes each."

If you think safety is expensive, wait until you have an accident.

[vilas]

Bloggs
You are saying handflying in SIM or actual aircaft? Sim offcourse they do. Anyway lot of thought is going into changing routine exercises in SIM training. They are changing to what is called EBT, evidence based training. With new technology some failures have become easy to deal with so they are being replaced with more error prone ones.

[A37575]

They are changing to what is called EBT, evidence based training

OMG, here we go again with yet more buzz-words. EBT. Ever since the first fabric covered flying machine pilots have been doing EBT. It is called dual instruction.

Pilot holds off high in the sim and gets tail strike. In other words it is evidence he needs more training. Isn't that "evidence based training" or have I completely missed the point?:E

If airlines, for whatever reason, elect not to permit hand flying on revenue flights then whether the ideal alternative or not, it would be logical to use the simulator for the purpose.

And that means making time available in the simulator and not wasting that expensive and valuable time 90% of the session by flogging around in the simulator on automatic pilot pressing buttons and reading time consuming checklists. It is called cost-efficiency.

[RAT 5]

"OK, every SIM session let's get our pilots to do some handflying and stall and UA recoveries, 15 minutes each."

Some do: it is not training as it should be, it is a tick in the box.

[vilas]

A37575
You surely are missing the point. There are some exercises in the recurrent and OPC which are mandetorily performed because it is regulatory requirement. In modern aeroplanes these exercises majority of pilots perform satisfacorily. While some others are not performed so well. They want to emphasize on those with the approval of authorities.

[Capn Bloggs]

There are some exercises in the recurrent and OPC which are mandetorily performed because it is regulatory requirement. In modern aeroplanes these exercises majority of pilots perform satisfacorily.
Examples?

Some do: it is not training as it should be, it is a tick in the box.
Rat, that was simply a fictitious quote I made up by a half-understanding CEO. That some companies do is great, even if it is only a tick in the box. At least it is a start.

[HPSOV L]

I don't think practicing hand flying in the sim every few months would make the slightest difference.
To retain hand flying skills you have to be doing it every other day.
Par for the course in some types of operation.
Impractical in others.
I don't think there is a solution; we are just in a point in the development of aviation where a gap has opened between economics and human factors. Presumably the gap is economically acceptable right now and will close as technology improves.

[Capn Bloggs]

Examples?Rather than scoff at the idea of evidence based training, it might be worth at least trying to understand the concept behind it, and what the intention of it is. In other words: Yes, you have completely missed the point.

I was just after an example, not a lecture. And I was asking Vilas, not you. But while you're at it, in your experience of ATQP, what "standard" SIM events have you seen discarded so the time could be used for, say, 2E go-round practice?

[latetonite]

Aha, now I know. I have seen quit a few supposedly top notch pilots not be able to fly an approach in the sim raw data and no A/T.
Must be the lack of G feeling!

[vilas]

CaptBloggs &JS
A year and half back I read an Airbus presentation on EBT in which a statistic was provided as to which exercises are performed properly and which are not and percentages were given. Unfortunately I could not locate it but I am sure I can. I think Emirates is in forefront on this.

[Teldorserious]

The answer lies with asking your friendly neighbourhood Sim instructor his take on this. Get enough beers in him and he will say 'how do these guys get jobs?'

Hence why it used to be mostly handflying tests with some use of the AP, now a Raw Data approach is considered an emergency event, with the caveat that Raw data is an HSI with out a Flight Director. So the level required of pilots these days has been recalibrated from 'robot that could be considered a pilot on some level' to 'pathetic in title only, let's hope the lights don't go out'.

[barit1]

The situation: a 2 AM takeoff from a Middle Eastern airport (but not an oil-rich one), engine fails (non-recoverable) at Vr, and the captain has been warned against OEI return & approach to this airfield because of unreliable power (lighting) at this site.

A more reliable airfield is a 90 minute hop away.

Where is the lesser risk? Fly the circuit and hope the approach lighting behaves? Or set sail for the better-run airfield?

[vilas]

The need for change was felt due to
1.By regulation Flight Crew Training and checking is based on events, which may be highly improbable in modern aeroplanes.
2.Training programmes are consequently saturated with items that may not necessarily mitigate the real risk or enhance safety in modern air transport operations.
It was started as a safety initiative to enhance and harmonize airline training standards and was developed by industry stake holders under the umbrella of IATA starting 2008. It was to be added in PANS TRAINING in 2012 along with ICAO manual of EBT. It is supposed to be in two phases Recurrent and type rating. The Data came from Global Data report. Training criticality survey, Accident and incident analysis and enahnced EBT will also include Individual Operator Analysis. Global Data has cosidered LOSA reports, Flight Data Analysis studies(3,000000 flights),NTSB Data base(1962 to 2010, 22 aircraft types), 20000 SIM evaluations from airlines and Boeing pilot survey on trainig.
In short all the agencies that matter are involved. The article is too big to produce here. Those interested can go to the ICAO document.

[sheppey]

That exercise is a time waster and could just as easily be covered in a class room discussion. What cannot be covered in a class room discussion is handling a 35 knot crosswind on a limiting runway length at night. Or loss of thrust on both engines following a volcanic ash encounter leading into a forced landing from 18,000 ft. Ever attempted a dead stick landing in a simulator? if you haven't, then the chances are high you would crash if for real.

These are just a few examples of the sort of basic handling skills absent in today's jet transport cockpits. Minimise the tedium of button pushing automatic approaches and time consuming check list reading and use valuable and rare simulator time to concentrate on manual skills that have been steadily eroded by automation addiction.

[barit1]

That exercise is a time waster and could just as easily be covered in a class room discussion.

No quarrel. It's not a handling exercise; it's a judgement exercise.

[Dream Land]

Create a corps of button-pushing SOP monkeys. Safer & cheaper by Rat 5Spot on, exactly what was and continues to occur at my previous SE Asian airline, along with making managers / checkers out of the worst of the lot - based only on their political position. :ugh:

[RAT 5]

Have heard of airlines whose SOP is A/P on at 1000 agl on takeoff, dual ch A/P ILS to allow an A/P in case of G/A, even if not LVP's, and then disconnect A/P below 1000' agl on finals. How do they pass their prof checks which do include some manual flying (N-1)?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Well, most people will go "mind if I hand fly a bit?".

No.

[bubbers44]

I guess if you can not hand fly autopilot above 1,000 ft must be a requirement. Some make it 400 ft because their pilots are even worse. We handflew most departures and arrivals and only turned the autopilot on when we got bored. But we are old now so are sorry to see aviation depend so much on automation because of the inexperience of some.

Asian pilots have shown that twice in the last month at SFO how automation makes you a programmer, not a real pilot. They can[t do a simple visual approach in clear weather to SFO. We all looked out the window and landed, they can't.

[flarepilot]

I beg to differ...it is not seat of the pants flying vs automation...it is smart flying vs automation.

seat of the pants flying is what is meant when instruments are not consulted...the last six inches of a landing is a good example of modern seat of the pants.

automation makes it easy to sell an expensive jet to a third world aviation country with no GA or exceptional military training.

[latetonite]

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

[LeadSled]

Ever attempted a dead stick landing in a simulator? if you haven't, then the chances are high you would crash if for real.

Sheppy,
Yessir, and so did every pilot in the fleet (B767), it was part of the cyclic training program, introduced after the "Gimli Glider" accident -- which sets the period.
Right from the word go, no pilot failed to make a runway, even if they deliberately planned a little "hot and high", based on the logic that it was better to go of the other end at slow speed, than not quite make the runway at 140Kt.
Needless to say, it was not part of the "pass/fail" program, but we all thought it a very valuable exercise in a company that demanded a high level of manual flying skill, as well as a high level of competence with the autoflight systems.
Sadly, I am told that the same company now discourages hand flying --- the wonders of new age management??
Tootle pip!!

[barit1]

A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

[Teldorserious]

The endless thread debate -

'Learn to fly'
'But we don't want to, besides the chief pilot won't let us'

(Another plane crash)

'Learn to fly'
'But we don't want to, besides the chief pilot won't let us'

(Another plane crash)

Repeat...

[RAT 5]

When the USA Airbus lost it tail in a vortex on departure the NTSB investigated the airlines training techniques and discovered a fault in their teaching, plus a lack of information from the manufacturer on the matter. In other words it was not deemed to be a design fault.
I wonder if there has been a case, or ever will be, of an accident resulting from a recoverable incident due to lack of basic piloting skill. If this could be the case, and the training dept was investigated and the airline handling policy scrutinised, I wonder if the AAIB would conclude the pilots were 'not fit for purpose' and take action? True, they would have legitimate LPC's and prof checks, but the cat would be amongst the pigeons if it was concluded that the pilots should have been able to save the day but were not competent.

[DozyWannabe]

I wonder if the AAIB would conclude the pilots were 'not fit for purpose' and take action?

The AAIB's remit does not extend to apportioning responsibility. Like most civil service accident investigation bodies, it can enumerate in detail exactly what went wrong and suggest remedial action, but it cannot directly lay fault.

[sheppey]

automation makes it easy to sell an expensive jet to a third world aviation country with no GA or exceptional military training. ]

Astute observation:ok: In fact I thought one of the best illustrations of this was a letter to the editor of Aviation Week which said (in discussing automation addiction) "Using autothrottle on final approach is like using cruise control to park your car in the garage:D

[Clandestino]

Just the truth, sunshine

Great. We got an explanation why the Turkish at AMS and Asiana at LAX were inevitable...

Take off your automation/Airbus sunglasses and try to understand why pilots can no longer fly aeroplanes. ... but I don't get it completely; they were yoked, classic, manly, seat of the pants, definitively-not-Airbus aeroplanes and yet they got wrecked.

Could you maintain hand flying skills by simulator sessions alone?Obtain and maintain, provided they are practiced in the sim. ZFTers are walking among us for last two decades and are not particularly abundant in grim statistics.

Is the simulator of today accurate enough? It is certified as accurate enough to provide initial and recurrent training. No data support hypothesis it shouldn't have been.

What are the shortfalls of the FFS? Apart from the obvious one that a FFS is not an aircraft! One of the major shortfall are pilots who get into them with "It's only a sim" mindset. Good example was made by a certain TRI - 7200 hrs on type yet when the birds hit his fan, he was unable to replicate for real the maneuver he was practicing in sim for ages. Unlike host of others that fly as trained and only get cursory mention on Avherald.

[flarepilot]

the observation (and thank you) is from a major argument I had with the professor occupying the boeing chair at M.I.T. (mass institute of technology) in 1992 or so.

he was explaining to me why skilled pilots would no longer be needed as boeing and airbus had adopted the philosophy that automation would take care of everything.

I asked him what a 300 hour pilot flying a plane the size of a l747 would do when the gadgets quit.

he simply said: they won't quit.

a really good pilot, who keeps his skills high by practice, and a plane with good automation, intuitive to a good pilot, can't be beat. but a crummy pilot with a good automation plane is asking for trouble.

even now we are finding problems with robotic surgery, and I recall when San Francisco built the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. They were going to run the rail trains without drivers...but the computer system didn't quite work right.

oops (oh and the drivers may be on strike soon)

[vilas]

Hi everyone
Tons of words are written against automation, manual flying to the hilt is recommended and lot is said about the value of experienced pilots against 200hrs guys in RH seat. But what is actually taking place in real world? Are we missing the point? I said before civil aviation is a commercial activity. Commercial viability takes precedence above everything else. Regulatory bodies also are on board when they lowered the requirements to be in RH or LH seat and accept the automation. Surely some studies were conducted and the findings were accepted word wide. Now what is the industry response to this clamour against automation? More automation with better safe guards and definitely not manual flying aeroplanes. Man may not be replaced as yet but surely will be reduced to monitoring role. Say what you like but it is writing on the wall. I have seen Navigators exit the cockpit followed by FEs they also had some points in their favour but now nobody is uncomfortable without their presence. Automation has its merits. Without it longhaul, all weather operations were not possible.

[main_dog]

Vilas, I don't think anyone would argue that automation isn't an extremely valuable tool. The problem is that as long as the automation is fallible (and it most certainly is, and will be for the foreseable future) then a pilot is still required at the pointy end to make decisions and perhaps even (gasp shock horror) fly the airplane.

If said pilot has "kept his hand in the game" and occasionally clicks all the automatics off to practice his skills, then the day those skills are required it will be a non-event. If instead he's a child of the magenta who depends on the automation to make up for skills he never acquired or lost, then chances are that it will end in tears.

Mind you we are all at risk of becoming "magenta children", even if we came from GA/military or "steamgauges": the wonders of LNAV/VNAV (or "Managed" if you're on the bus) can lull anyone into a false sense of complacency. The only effective mitigation strategy is a continuous critical review of what the automatics are doing at all times, and once in a while when conditions allow, disengage all automatics, practice your scan and remind yourself that you can still handfly!

MD

[Teldorserious]

Flare nailed it.

The current myopia is that the gear won't break. This is self delusion at it's best.

AF447 went down because a lighting strike flashed the ROMS, knocked out the tubes, no iron gyros and now in turbulence, you got pilots in the dark trying to handfly an aircraft with no attitude reference.

The unthinkable happened - The plane broke and wouldn't fly itself.

[flarepilot]

I am highly distressed at the course modern aviation (of all forms ) has taken.

Automation...great as it never fails (didn't anyone see "2001, a space odyssey"? Hal, HAL, daisy daisy give me your answer do)

We have shrunk the single most important instrument (airspeed) to a sidebar

We have taken the mental situational awareness away...my brain could, with two VORs , a DME, and an NDB/ADF know exactly where we were all the time.

We are asking olympic athletes to use elevators and escalators and get old and fat. (of the aviation brain that is).


I know how I would design a jetliner...the cockpit would have a giant airspeed indicator and a giant horizon and a giant altimeter, there would be a HUD for airspeed, horizon and altimeter too.

The control system would be Douglas strong...cables, no computer interference and the plane itself would be strong enough to handle me flying the wings off it ONCE to a safe landing.

Of course I would fly it like an old lady to avoid having to use the ''fly the wings off'' saving system.

Now we have a plane...nav instruments and wx radar improvements ...sure...but the Basic instruments of flying are there and the standard scan for any landing would be; airspeed, runway, airspeed runway

instrument conditions would certainly include altitude, horizon and nav.

But we have moved away from FLYING in an effort to make the gadgets happy.


Like bubbers said, autopilot is for when you get bored of hand flying. And if you are performing a maneuver or approach using the autopilot, you better be ready to fly it as well as the autopilot or you shouldn't even try the maneuver or approach.

Even 20 years ago I watched (laughingly) as one pilot I was flying with had a devil of a time HAND FLYING at cruise altitude. He couldn't do it within ATP standards. I finally said, why not descend to an altitude that allows the plane to be a bit more stable. What to do if the autopilot fails?

What to do till the doctor arrives?

Back in the day, a pilot had to fly.

[A37575]

the cockpit would have a giant airspeed indicator and a giant horizon and a giant altimeter

Agree. Have you noticed how most wristwatches now have hands (pointers). Before that came digital numbers. Before that too were hands on the face of the clock. It is quicker to gauge the time by looking at the round dial watch. Don't ask me why but certainly it seems that way.
Round dial ASI's took your attention as their rate of change of airspeed in either direction stood out. Drum type ASI's need interpretation of a different type to round dial ASI's.

Take a look at the "modern" artificial horizon in glass cockpits. Usually a tiny triangle as "the little aeroplane" if you have a good imagination, and nothing like the old type of artificial horizons of yesteryear with a big "little aeroplane" that stood out like dog's balls and much easier to fly on instruments.

The glass cockpit AH's which are usually half camouflaged by coloured bakgrounds are designed primarily for flight directors and often surrounded by a plethora of additional flight information. Garmin displays are like reading a colour blindness chart. Somewhere among those colours is a "little aeroplane".

It may be why the average airline pilot brought up on button pushing often has trouble with basic instrument flying

[flarepilot]

It is incumbent upon the industry to remember that flying the plane is the most important thing one can do.

then comes navigation.

(lump in wx radar in the nav area...but you could clean things up by having a voice say: fly heading 220degrees, instead of cluttering up the cockpit with things so big they detract from basic flight instruments)

then comes communication...heck, modern times could have the controllers switch radio frequencies for you and you could forget about that.

But to lessen the importance of the flight instrument...no wonder we have crashes like Asiana.

And yes, the Air Speed Indicator with a pointer and a vref somewhere near the 3 or 4 o'clock position, V2 also is just about right.

[Clandestino]

I am highly distressed at the course modern aviation (of all forms ) has taken.

I am not. It is far too easy for a PPRuNer to assume what mass-media are reporting is average crew performance while actually it is only the worst extreme that is nowadays recognized as reportingworthy.

Automation...great as it never failsThat's not what operating and training manuals say. There are appropriate procedures for dealing with automation failures and they get followed far more often than not.

The current myopia is that the gear won't break. This is self delusion at it's best. As long as such myopia is limited to anonymous doom-rantings on the Internet, I'm fine with it. There are incompetent managers stipulating policies that are somewhat at odds with need to keep the pilots fit enough to take over from Otto/George when it packs up but while they might be flying-ignorant, they are still legal-savvy and would never explicitly even state their pilots need not be proficient in manual flying, let alone put it down in approved manuals.

AF447 went down because a lighting strike flashed the ROMS, knocked out the tubes, no iron gyros and now in turbulence, you got pilots in the dark trying to handfly an aircraft with no attitude reference. The purpose of this easily verifiable and utterly false statement is mystery to me.

We have shrunk the single most important instrument (airspeed) to a sidebar1. It is not the single most important instrument when you are flying without outside visual reference, as airline pilots often do. 2. There is no even half serious report on difficulties interpreting the airspeed from tape indicators ever since we got them on Thunderchief.

We have taken the mental situational awareness away...For Finnegan's sake.... how do you explain thousands upon thousands of uneventful flights every day or dozens of abnormal situations handled daily if the mental situational awareness is really taken away? Again: this is assuming the worst case scenario is actually the usual one.

But we have moved away from FLYING in an effort to make the gadgets happy.Never an inch. We, here, have moved from rational analysis into realm of fantasy gone wild just to make our scaremongering seem plausible.

Drum type ASI's need interpretation of a different type to round dial ASI's. I've flown the beast with drum and pointer altimeter but this... is this some kind of Soviet thingy? Can I have a picture of it, please?

My bet is it will turn out to be just added digital readout to speed tape.

Take a look at the "modern" artificial horizon in glass cockpits. Usually a tiny triangle as "the little aeroplane" if you have a good imagination, and nothing like the old type of artificial horizons of yesteryear with a big "little aeroplane" that stood out like dog's balls and much easier to fly on instruments. For Finnegan's sake, when I take a look around my office, the only AH comparable in size to those of steam gauge era is ISIS! Those on PFDs (and EADI before it) are far bigger than giant three-inchers of yesteryear. AS for tiny triangle a) it is not that tiny b) European airlines prefer split cue so we mostly still have aeroplane silhouette on AHs.

The glass cockpit AH's which are usually half camouflaged by coloured bakgrounds are designed primarily for flight directors Coloured background has pretty definite meaning: blue=sky, brown=ground. Just remember which is which.

It may be why the average airline pilot brought up on button pushing often has trouble with basic instrument flying Average pilot in average circumstances (hopefully this fits the "often" definition) doesn't but don't let the facts ruin the good libel.

lump in wx radar in the nav area...but you could clean things up by having a voice say: fly heading 220degrees, instead of cluttering up the cockpit with things so big they detract from basic flight instrumentsWhat kind of lump? Where is the sun? What is the wind? Is it the only lump around? Where is the terrain in relation to lump? What wx is our destination calling? Will our contingency+extra cover the deviation?

Create computer and program that will solve all of it satisfactorily to just give you "steer to..." as solution and I guarantee the Nobel prize in computer science will be made just to be delivered to you, because you will achieve true artificial intelligence.

And yes, the Air Speed Indicator with a pointer and a vref somewhere near the 3 or 4 o'clock position, V2 also is just about right. It is. So is the tape type.

[flarepilot]

clandestino

yes airspeed might not be the most important thing while on instruments...but my comment was aimed at landing and or visual conditions.

and in visual conditions asiana managed to get too slow.they didn't need a horizon to know they were right side up. we shall see

[Natstrackalpha]

[QUOTE]Land-Rover, to have the system miss the "offending phrase"/QUOTE]

``Randy Lover?``

[Natstrackalpha]

[QUOTE]that stood out like dog's balls and much easier to fly on instruments. /QUOTE]

Yawing Right tread on left ball, yawing left tread on right ball - dog yelping - too much rudder!

You could have a concrete boulder tied to a chain suspended from the overhead panel. When the aircraft banks the huge boulder bangs the heads of the crew to wake them up -

[dubbleyew eight]

I just love this piece of :mad:

Automation...great as it never fails

as a former control systems engineer I can assure you that automation is only ever as good as the sensors. when either they fail or the link to them fails you'd better have a good fallback approach.

[RAT 5]

when either they fail or the link to them fails you'd better have a good fallback approach.

It's called the disconnect button and the pilot.

[N1EPR]

There I was at six thousand feet over central Iraq , two hundred eighty knots and we're dropping faster than Paris Hilton's panties. It's a typical September evening in the Persian Gulf ; hotter than a rectal thermometer and I'm sweating like a priest at a Cub Scout meeting. But that's neither here nor there. The night is moonless over Baghdad tonight, and blacker than a Steven King novel. But it's 2006, folks, and I'm sporting the latest in night-combat technology - namely, hand-me-down night vision goggles (NVGs) thrown out by the fighter boys. Additionally, my 1962 Lockheed C-130E Hercules is equipped with an obsolete, yet, semi-effective missile warning system (MWS). The MWS conveniently makes a nice soothing tone in your headset just before the missile explodes into your airplane. Who says you can't polish a turd? At any rate, the NVGs are illuminating Baghdad International Airport like the Las Vegas Strip during a Mike Tyson fight. These NVGs are the cat's ass. But I've digressed. The preferred method of approach tonight is the random shallow. This tactical maneuver allows the pilot to ingress the landing zone in an unpredictable manner, thus exploiting the supposedly secured perimeter of the airfield in an attempt to avoide enemy surface-to-air-missiles and small arms fire. Personally, I wouldn't bet my pink ass on that theory but the approach is fun as hell and that's the real reason we fly it. We get a visual on the runway at three miles out, drop down to one thousand feet above the ground, still maintaining two hundred eighty knots. Now the fun starts.It's pilot appreciation time as I descend the mighty Herc to six hundred feet and smoothly, yet very deliberately, yank into a sixty degree left bank, turning the aircraft ninety degrees offset from runway heading. As soon as we roll out of the turn, I reverse turn to the right a full two hundred seventy degrees in order to roll out aligned with the runway. Some aeronautical genius coined this maneuver the "Ninety/Two-Seventy." Chopping the power during the turn, I pull back on the yoke just to the point my nether regions start to sag, bleeding off energy in order to configure the pig for landing. "Flaps Fifty!, landing Gear Down!, Before Landing Checklist!" I lookover at the copilot and he's shaking like a cat ****ting on a sheet of ice. Looking further back at the navigator, and even through the Nags, I can clearly see the wet spot spreading around his crotch. Finally, I glance at my steely eyed flight engineer. His eyebrows rise in unison as a grin forms on his face. I can tell he's thinking the same thing I am .... "Where do we find such fine young men?""Flaps One Hundred!" I bark at the shaking cat. Now it's all aim-point and airspeed. Aviation 101, with the exception there are no lights, I'm on NVGs, it's Baghdad , and now tracers are starting to crisscross the black sky. Naturally, and not at all surprisingly, I grease the Goodyear's on brick-one of runway 33 left, bring the throttles to ground idle and then force the props to full reverse pitch. Tonight, the sound of freedom is my four Hamilton Standard propellers chewing through the thick, putrid, Baghdad air. The huge, one hundred thirty-thousand pound, lumbering whisper pig comes to a lurching stop in less than two thousand feet. Let's see a Viper do that!We exit the runway to a welcoming committee of government issued Army grunts. It's time to download their beans and bullets and letters from their sweethearts, look for war booty, and of course, urinate on Saddam's home. Then I thank God I'm not in the Army. Knowing once again I've cheated death, I ask myself, "What in the hell am I doing in this mess?" Is it Duty, Honor, and Country? You bet your ass. Or could it possibly be for the glory, the swag, and not to mention, chicks dig the Air Medal. There's probably some truth there, too. But now is not the time to derive the complexities of the superior, cerebral properties of the human portion of the aviator-man-machine model. It is however, time to get out of this hole. Hey copilot how's 'bout the 'Before Starting Engines Checklist." God, I love this job!!!!

[flarepilot]

Instead of talking about laser ring gyros, let's get back to basic flying like our gallant C130 jockey

I'll bet less than half of those on this forum have ever used a 90/270 in any situation.

[Feather #3]

Flarepilot,

Air displays. Works a treat!

BTW, I had tears in my eyes I was laughing so hard. Thanks N1EPR:D

G'day ;)

[RAT 5]

Last time I did that was in a crop-sprayer a couple of wing-tips off the deck. However, that a/c was built for it. Hauling a big C130 around like that must be a feeling of 'a job well done,' after the "what the **** am I doing this for" moment.
If you've got the t-shirt what brings a smile these days?

[flarepilot]

right now some real flying is being done in order to fight major wildfires in the western UNITED STATES, esp near and in Yosemite national park.

drone fire bombers? don't think that will be happening soon.

[AirRabbit]

Thanks N1EPR !!!

I've finally found someone who's posts can be as long as mine!!

:D. :ok:

[Clandestino]

I'll bet less than half of those on this forum have ever used a 90/270 in any situation.

90/270 is often used for course reversal... in imagination of the folks who don't actually fly.

[mross]

How can a ninety left followed by a two-seventy right not have you flying away from the runway? Or did I miss the half rolls?

[barit1]

How can a ninety left followed by a two-seventy right not have you flying away from the runway? Or did I miss the half rolls?

It's a simple course reversal. Need not have anything to do with a runway. :rolleyes:

[flarepilot]

mross...imagine you are flying heading 360 degrees over runway 36 make a left 90 followed by a right 270 and you should be heading 180 in a place to go straight in to runway 18

it is a course reversal

and dear clandestino

real pilots do use 90/270s in real life and in the sim.

we are allowed to do them in lieu of a charted procedure turn as long as it is on the protected side.

I've done them in real jets / real instrument simulators...GETTING PAID REAL MONEY.

[RAT 5]

How can a ninety left followed by a two-seventy right not have you flying away from the runway? Or did I miss the half rolls?


Arithmetic and situational awareness.

[Capn Bloggs]

How can a ninety left followed by a two-seventy right not have you flying away from the runway? Or did I miss the half rolls?

I'm scatching my head over that one as well...

[mross]

Thanks to people who pointed out that a 90/270 is a course reversal - that is bleeding obvious to all of us!!! :ugh:

What I had missed, reading N1EPR's tale, was that he overflew the runway first. He mentions descending above the airfield perimeter but that is what you do on a normal approach too. Nor did he give runway headings. It's hard to read such a big block of text, especially when it's fully justified!

Anyway, it was a good read, albeit wildly off topic ;)

[DozyWannabe]

The current myopia is that the gear won't break. This is self delusion at it's best.

If that's the case, then why is it that "the gear" is designed in such a way that it can "break" in any myriad number of ways and leave the aircraft in a flyable state? Or that recurrent training includes scenarios where said systems fail?

AF447 went down because a lighting strike flashed the ROMS, knocked out the tubes, no iron gyros and now in turbulence, you got pilots in the dark trying to handfly an aircraft with no attitude reference.

Like Clandestino, I have no idea where you got that from - but there's no evidence whatsoever to support that scenario, and a whole load of evidence that refutes it.

Not to mention that even if the shielding were to be defeated - lightning strikes don't "flash" ROMs, all the ADIRUs plus ISIS back-up use data from gyros mounted in the unit and the FDR confirms that at least one attitude reference was working just fine throughout.

The control system would be Douglas strong...cables, no computer interference and the plane itself would be strong enough to handle me flying the wings off it ONCE to a safe landing.

Would that be "Douglas strong" like the THY DC-10 where a floor collapse severed all the cables and hydraulic lines? And would this be the same Douglas that swore up-and-down to Capt. Bryce McCormick that it was impossible to lose all hydraulics on the DC-10?

Don't get me wrong, Douglas did make their airframes fairly tough, but they lagged behind badly in the redundancy and survivability stakes going into the jet age. Also, any airliner using direct cable connections can't be much bigger than a DC-6. That means no more widebodies and a rapidly contracting airline industry.

Electronic control connections are much less bulky, easier to route through the more solid sections of the airframe and present a much smaller area prone to damage by debris. An electronic system is also far easier to provide re-routing redundancy if and when such damage occurs.

Round dial ASI's took your attention as their rate of change of airspeed in either direction stood out. Drum type ASI's need interpretation of a different type to round dial ASI's.

Different yes, but not more difficult if the current safety record is taken into account. Anyway, pilots have been debating the relative merits and preferences regarding instruments - and altimeters in particular - going back to the E. K. Gann days (specifically the three-needle vs. two-needle plus drum types).

Again, don't get me wrong - Clandestino is absolutely right when he says that unscrupulous management and executives are in some cases cutting stick-and-rudder experience and training too close to the bone. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here - the fact is that these advances have made civil aviation a hell of a lot safer and allowed the industry to grow to a level that was unimaginable even in the '60s. This fact is as simple as it is irrefutable.

As a techie, I'm as prone as anyone to getting the rose-tinted specs out when it comes to remembering the days of bit-flipping on 8- and 16-bit processors versus the highly regimented, abstracted and process-driven methods we use today. I seriously miss the simplicity and the feeling of direct communion with the machine. But if I take those specs off for even a few seconds I realise that I'd be nuts to even attempt what is done these days using those old methods.

[Pugilistic Animus]

from full automation to stalling in direct law on an airbus impossible:suspect:

[DozyWannabe]

@PA - The FCOM manuals for Airbus FBW types clearly state that outside of Normal Law, Alpha protections are lost and the aircraft can be stalled. And they always have.

[Pugilistic Animus]

hence the importance of hand flying...all it took was one iced pitot tube...unreliable airspeed is no reason to crash any airplane

[DozyWannabe]

...all it took was one iced pitot tube..
Not quite - it took all three.

hence the importance of hand flying
Specifically at high altitude in that case.

unreliable airspeed is no reason to crash any airplane
Agreed - but there was a lot more to that accident than overreliance on automation!

[Pugilistic Animus]

regardless of my error....hand flying is imporyant so one can quickly adapt to rapidly chsnging conditions

[Pugilistic Animus]

the most important training is your primary training not your atpl...

[DozyWannabe]

And I'm in total agreement with you. But given that, the PF in that case was a highly experienced glider/sailplane pilot and as such probably had more basic stick-and-rudder experience than most of his peers. The training and experience he lacked was specifically on manual handling at high altitude.

As I said, it's a lot more complex than just trotting out the "Children Of The Magenta" meme again...

[Pugilistic Animus]

we are talking IFR

[flarepilot]

dozy

douglas strong...unlike airbus strong where the vertical tail falls off

douglas strong , you know like all the DC8's that are still flying...and DC3s, and the DC4s which are fire bombers.

how many 707s and comets are still in use (not military)? not many

I stand by what I said...and cables that work hydraulics work just fine in really big planes.

comet...metal fatigue

737 pop top?

yeah...I'll take douglas...esp single digit dougs

[DozyWannabe]

@PA - IFR/VFR isn't the issue - the difference is how a swept-wing jet handles at cruise as opposed to at low altitude.

douglas strong...unlike airbus strong where the vertical tail falls off

If you want to take a DC-10 up and subject the vertical stab to 1.8x ultimate design load to prove that point, then be my guest - just please understand why I won't be standing anywhere in the vicinity.

douglas strong , you know like all the DC8's that are still flying...and DC3s, and the DC4s which are fire bombers.

Not pressurised in the case of the latter two. And the venerable VC-10 has been flying in RAF service for about as long as the DC-8.

how many 707s and comets are still in use (not military)? not many

Well - to be fair most remaining 707 airframes have been requisitioned by the military for spares and the Nimrods were set to fly another 30 years before our current government decided to scrap them in favour of buying second-hand Rivet Joints.

I stand by what I said...and cables that work hydraulics work just fine in really big planes.

Fine, but I respectfully disagree.

comet...metal fatigue

Only the first model - and the VC-10 and BAC 1-11 that followed had fuselages machined from aluminium billets - there have been none tougher either before or since.

737 pop top?

Specific to the way Aloha used them - if they'd used DC-9s the same would have happened.

yeah...I'll take douglas...esp single digit dougs

Fine, but given the choice, I wouldn't.

Anyway, as fun as this willy-waving is, it's somewhat beside the point. The undeniable truth is that even with the myriad problems facing the industry, it is statistically far safer than it was when DC airliners ruled the sky. I agree with you that there needs to be more attention paid to handflying skills by the industry, but to blame technological advances for this state of affairs is putting the cart before the horse.

[Pugilistic Animus]

IMC vs VMC is a huge difference!

[bubbers44]

I flew that Aloha 737 over 100 hrs I am sure before Aloha got it from us. Mostly over FL330. We had an incident where the crew got low landing at ONT and hit high voltage power lines and diverted to LAX. The power lines caught their landing gear causing faults that caused an overun. Reinforcement to the belly of that ac might have kept the aircraft intact with the upper skin torn off.
I always trusted Boeing aircraft so stayed with them for 25years with no major problems and about 16,000 hrs in Boeing aircraft. I flew the MD80 for a bit also.

[flarepilot]

dozy...now I know you are wrong...the DC9 had something the 737 didn't have...take a look at the upper fuselage and the finger like metal...then look it up.

heh.

[DozyWannabe]

IMC vs VMC is a huge difference!

I know - but *in that case* the more problematic lack of experience was high-altitude manual handling, where the aircraft's response in the 3 axes will be far more sensitive due to the lower-density air. That crew's only manual handling experience was takeoff to a couple of thousand feet and approach/landing.

dozy...now I know you are wrong...the DC9 had something the 737 didn't have...take a look at the upper fuselage and the finger like metal...then look it up.

Possibly, but if the corrosion had occurred either before or at the apex of the finger lap, then you might have had a scenario which was the same or worse, due to pressure buildup along the finger laps that were holding.

[Pugilistic Animus]

mainly it's about reduced aerodynamic damping...mean one must be gentle with the flight controls...in IMC...at night in turbulence....there are six axes

[DozyWannabe]

Sure. Or, (as in the case of AF447) leave the controls alone* and monitor aircraft behaviour until such time as a correction needs to be made.

* - but cover them and be prepared to use them

[Pugilistic Animus]

I have never flown an Airbus...but I don't think that that is the procedure for unreliable ASI.

with no AP the plane will enter a spiral dive without manual intervention

[flarepilot]

dozzy...possibly the sun will explode.

possibly I will be elected POTUS

now look up the finger laps/joints and how they would SHOW a problem if there were one...

douglas used more rivets

[DozyWannabe]

@PA - The Airbus UAS procedure is posted in the AF447 threads. And here:
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp090601.en/pdf/annexe.06.en.pdf

The aircraft will not spiral dive for some time if the trimmed pitch and power are OK, which at that point they were.

now look up the finger laps/joints and how they would SHOW a problem if there were one...

douglas used more rivets

Hi - yes, I know. I did look things up as you requested and found a very interesting academic paper on the subject here:

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14513087/1326009573/name/TSwift_Comet.pdf

Admittedly the equations go over my head, but the prose explains it well. It transpires that Douglas's approach on fatigue was very much informed by the information shared from the Comet 1 investigation.

Now - the problem in the Aloha case was not with the design so much as it was the way the aircraft was maintained by the airline (though the NTSB stated that the airline were not to know that their methods may be problematic). It was the disbonding, re-bonding and re-riveting performed as part of an overhaul that caused greater opportunity for corrosion and fatigue. In fact one of the passengers did see a small crack before she boarded, but did not speak up as she assumed it was known about.

Additionally, sometimes making things tough is not the way to do things - witness the MD-11 hard landings that sheared the spar at the gear attachment location.

[737er]

The autopilot had to be disconnected on Apollo 11 to prevent a crash. Apollo 13 would have been a loss without pilots.

No autopilot today can even handle something as routine as mountain wave. That's just one of many examples. No autopilot today can get an airplane out of an unusual attitude reliably. They can however put you in one.

Drones are not pilotless, they are remotely flown and still crash a lot.

Airliners still on the drawing board are still based on the 2 pilot concept .

You guys thinking large commercial jets will be flying pilotless in 20 years are smoking the funny stuff.

[DozyWannabe]

The autopilot had to be disconnected on Apollo 11 to prevent a crash.

To be fair, that was triggered because Buzz Aldrin (reasonably, though contrary to procedure) left the rendezvous radar on standby during the descent in the event of an emergency abort. What he didn't know was that leaving it on would steal cycles from the guidance computer in the early stages of descent. This resulted in the LEM ending up somewhat downrange of its original intended landing point.

That point aside, I completely agree.

[Pugilistic Animus]

one gust and you can be spiraling in short order...all planes want to spiral but it's is indeed. ususually a slow process if in trim in smooth air...the point is one has to handfly routinely in oorder to be better equipped to deal with more exotic flight conditions...

[DozyWannabe]

I'm not arguing that second point PA, I agree!

However - looking at the DFDR traces shows the yaw damper working overtime to successfully keep the aircraft upright during even the most extreme gyrations.

I'm not saying leave the controls alone entirely, just that the first point of order should be to see if the aircraft will remain relatively stable without encouragement - which in most cases it should!

[Pugilistic Animus]

but you get your hands in the flight controls and eyes on the instruments immediately...but in most cases there are no fast hands in a jet...on that point you are corrrect

[DozyWannabe]

Yes - as I said about controls - "cover them (meaning get your limbs in a ready position) and be prepared to use them". If you start making inputs without assessing the situation then you're more than likely to get it wrong and end up fighting yourself - as happened with AF447.

[Pugilistic Animus]

It`s (To borrow a USAF term) HOTAS Hands on stick and throttle no inputs necessary but hands on ...

[mross]

The Apollo missions were 40 years ago! The damage was most serious for the life support systems which would not have been fitted if the pilots were not installed! Other systems were there to get the humans home, again not required on an autonomous mission.

[Centaurus]

I'm not saying leave the controls alone entirely, just that the first point of order should be to see if the aircraft will remain relatively stable without encouragement - which in most cases it should!

If I recall, a Lion Air Indonesia B737 went into a gradual spiral at night with devastating consequences. Seems the crew were having difficulties with one of the to IRS. in fact there were many reported snags on that IRS previously.

Again, from memory, the crew decided to trouble shoot and switched off one of the IRS and in turn this caused the automatic pilot to disconnect. Either the crew didn't realise the autopilot had disengaged or if they did, neither pilot was allotted the task of flying the aircraft manually.

While one pilot read from the QRH about IRS non-normal, the other pilot selected the perceived offending IRS to the Attitude mode. This blanked out the PFD on one side. Meanwhile the 737 wandered around the sky at night with no one watching the flight instruments. It eventually went into a gentle spiral which got worse. By the time someone exclaimed WTF, the aircraft was in an unusual attitude.

The captain didn't have a clue how to recover from a UA and instead pulled back hard on the control column while in the spiral. It doesn't take too much imagination to guess why the aircraft eventually broke up in mid-air.

the point is one has to handfly routinely in order to be better equipped to deal with more exotic flight conditions...

And therefore the Lion Air crew went in...

[flarepilot]

interesting about lion air

the solution is obvious

the autopilot controls the plane at all times unless you continuously push a button on the yoke, then you fly it , fly it like the old days with no limiters.

and if the button shorts out, it turns the autopilot off and announces it as loud as a san francisco fog horn.

sound familiar? mooneys used this idea for their wing leveler

[speedrestriction]

Quote:
Are you saying that automation contributed to the Asiana 214 crash??? It sure looks like an automated landing would have prevented the crash.

Quite the reverse: the automatics may have been masking a threat in the system. For that particular approach the outcome may have been better if a higher level of automation had been used but that does not address the fact that there was a crew (and still undoubtedly are still crews) out there who given the wrong set of circumstances could not (and cannot) safely guide a serviceable aircraft to a runway in benign meteorological conditions.

The reality is that airlines are best served by having well rounded individuals in the flight deck and a key part of the necessary skill set is piloting skill. Piloting skill is not acquired and maintained by watching screens with one's hands sitting idly on one's knees.

[barit1]

speedrestriction: :D:D:D:D:D

Very succinct, very logical analysis of the root cause.
Matter of fact, the problem is greatly similar to automation in broadcast radio. When unattended, the system chirps merrily away sequencing music, ads, PSAs and other announcements untouched by human hands.

But when I (as a volunteer engineer/producer) take over manually, the computer is put on HOLD, and manual ops are just the same (almost) as during my student days 50 years ago. And executing a fast-paced audio sequence is not so emotionally different from landing in a crosswind. In a taildragger. :)

[vilas]

Pugilistic Animus
Airbus FBW does not get into spiral even with one engine fail and TOGA on live engine because the computers try to hold the position. Any tendency to spiral is prevented by computers by applying rudder upto yaw damper's authority and bank is prevented by applying opposite aileron and spoilers. Since yaw dampers cannot apply the required amount of rudder the aircraft does a skidding turn with MAX 5 to 7 degrees of bank. Even in Unreliable speed the aircraft is in alternate law so behaves the same way except it can be stalled or get into overspeed. You must disconnect AP, ATHR and switch off FDs and the a/c will maintain its pitch and bank.

[Pugilistic Animus]

vilas thankyou for the airbus AP information..very interesting....my knowledge of Airbus systems is nonexistant:)

[vilas]

OK465
I was talking about A320 behaviour OEI in normal law and AEO in unreliable speed in alternate law.

[RAT 5]

Hands off, in ALT2, roll Direct, A330 with one engine TOGA and one engine failed, the aircraft will spiral (somewhere in the 70-80 degree bank range). It will not however roll over on its back.

What happened to the A330?? from Toulouse on take off being flown by test-pilots that crashed. Was it not something like this? I never did see the final report.

[DozyWannabe]

What happened to the A330?? from Toulouse on take off being flown by test-pilots that crashed. Was it not something like this? I never did see the final report.

No - that one *was* automation and interface related if I recall correctly. The mode set in the FCU panel was Altitude acquire, which disabled the *autopilot* pitch protection - the FBW alpha protection was unable to correct in time given the incorrect pitch trim, extreme aft CG and power plus very low altitude. They changed the interface soon afterwards.

Airbus Industrie Flight 129 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Industrie_Flight_129)

[DozyWannabe]

Well yes, no argument there - but the original query was talking about AF447, which had no such asymmetric thrust condition.

I'm not sure at what point thrust asymmetry entered the discussion, and in any case you'd want to determine the direction of the thrust asymmetry before making corrective inputs no matter what kind of aircraft you were flying, would you not?

[DozyWannabe]

If I recall, a Lion Air Indonesia B737 went into a gradual spiral at night with devastating consequences. Seems the crew were having difficulties with one of the to IRS. in fact there were many reported snags on that IRS previously.

Hi Centaurus,

I can't find a Lion Air incident matching that profile - are you sure you're not thinking of Adam Air 574?

Admittedly it wasn't at night, but the weather was pretty rotten. The Captain was experienced, but new to the airline. They had INS issues as you say, exacerbated by the fact that the aircraft tended to roll to the right when AP was disengaged. They attempted to reset the two INS units without realising that this should be done on the ground, or at the very least with wings held level (as a last resort only). The INS therefore reset itself with a significant tendency to roll right and the rest is history.

The issue was in part incorrect problem-solving on the part of the crew, but underlying that was a significant can of worms regarding company maintenance. One of the leading theories was that the airframe itself was damaged, leading to a tendency to roll to the right, but as soon as AP was engaged, the automation compensated. The Captain noticed this when AP disconnected, hence his desire to re-engage in order to troubleshoot. He incorrectly assumed that the right roll tendency was a fault within the automation, and I have to wonder how many other pilots would have done the same?

[Centaurus]

I can't find a Lion Air incident matching that profile - are you sure you're not thinking of Adam Air 574?


Apologies. You are quite right. I meant Adam Air.:ugh:

[syseng68k]

You could argue that allowing the ins to be reset when the a/c was not on the
ground was a system design failure. Even if you could reset with wings level
in flight, all you have then is an attitude and perhaps vector reference and
not an ins.

Some of this kit is just bad by design, but that issue was discussed at length
in the AF447 thread with no concensus, fwir :-)...

[DozyWannabe]

You could argue that allowing the ins to be reset when the a/c was not on the ground was a system design failure. Even if you could reset with wings level in flight, all you have then is an attitude and perhaps vector reference and not an ins.

Well, that particular aircraft was a 737 Classic, so implementing and retrofitting that kind of lockout would be a significant headache. I can't believe that the restriction on resetting wasn't mentioned in the manual, to be honest!

Some of this kit is just bad by design, but that issue was discussed at length in the AF447 thread with no concensus, fwir :-)...

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "bad" - as long as it's used correctly, which means thorough training - and maintained correctly, which this aircraft was not. There's a reason Adam Air's operations certificate was withdrawn not too long afterwards.

Of course, AF447 was an Airbus - which tends to bring a whole lot of extra unnecessary baggage to the conversation...