Hand flying skills not a priority says Embry Riddle educator

[Centaurus]

It's official. Hand flying skills not that important any more, says Embry Riddle spokesman. See latest AVWEB

Modern Flight Systems Redefining Good Pilots

After two recent high-profile crashes (UPS and Asiana Airlines Flight 214), both involving fatalities, media reports have questioned the role of automation in the cockpit and in the opinion of former Northwest Captain and current Embry Riddle educator Jack Panosian, those concerns may not be unfounded.

Panosian told AVweb Thursday that his observation is that stick and rudder skills may be falling down the list of important assets required by professional pilots -- but that's not entirely bad.

Modern jets, he says, generally are not hand-flown aircraft and some have been designed from the outset to be flown for nearly the entire flight on automation. And that, Panosian says, makes a pilot's need for systems and information management skills at least as important as their stick and rudder abilities, and arguably more important.

If the man is right - and I don't believe he is - I guess that means the industry will have to expect the occasional loss of control accidents as a normal chain of events and just add more band-aids in the form of more automatics to minimise the chances of pilots actually touching the controls:ugh:

[bubbers44]

Somehow I didn't get that fuzzy warm feeling hearing his new concept of future pilots. More automation will fix it though so don't waste your money learning to fly properly with flight controls when you can just push a button.

[flyboyike]

In Capt Panosian's defense, he doesn't appear to say hand-flying is not important, he's saying that systems management is AS important as hand-flying, which isn't quite the same thing.

[Pugilistic Animus]

That's a very muppety statement...both skill sets need to be present. One is knowing the plane the other is flying the plane. Unfortunately only one is paid for....an FBT can be used for button pressing practice... The sim should be mostly hand flying

[flarepilot]

first off: every embry riddle pilot I've flown with has proven you don't need hand flying skills.

second: if you could have a girl friend that was smart, good looking, and great in bed or you could have a girlfriend that was smart...which would you take?

well, I'll take a pilot who knows how to hand fly WELL, when to hand fly and always be ready to takeover if the autos fail...and he should know how to make the automation work too.


but if you have to get rid of one thing...throw out the automation.

a good pilot or a good autopilot...I'll take the good pilot if I have to choose.

[bubbers44]

Good pilot and that girl that wasn't just smart have my vote.

[safetypee]

But more so is the ability to recognise situations when one skill might be more appropriate than the other.

[arismount]

There are flight instructors, and then there are "aviation educators."

If you want to learn to fly an aircraft, choose wisely.

[DownIn3Green]

That's why they are called "Riddle Rockets"....as in the clown that took a Pinnacle CRJ to FL410 on a ferry flight and killed himself and the 23 yr old Gulfstream PFT F/O due to lack of stick and rudder skills, and non-knowledge of the A/C's systems...

Don't need to know how to "hand fly"?...Then why did you want to get a "Pilot Certificate"?...Why not an IT degree?

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[flarepilot]

down3 green...agree

[Al Murdoch]

I'm not sure that I would put that accident down to poor stick and rudder skills, unless by which you mean grotesque unprofessionalism and lack of airmanship.

[bubbers44]

I'm still focused on the girl I would choose. Sorry. If she went to Embry Riddle and was really hot did her dad pay her college loan off or would I have to? I know that sounds shallow.

[Linktrained]

I went to " Britain'S Air University" at Hamble, pre 1950, when most of the initial training for a Commercial Pilot's Licence was done using the Tiger Moth. We were told that it was a good training aircraft, because " It was easy to fly but difficult to fly well".
It had been the RAF's initial training type for many thousands of would be pilots. " simple to build or, if necessary, to repair". A hood over the rear, pupil's, cockpit allowed some instrument flying, with just a basic instrument panel, enough for a pupil to learn, as a beginner. (Another pilot sat in front as a safety pilot.)
Link Training was partially drawing patterns, but leaning how to/ not to stall and spin - and how to recover from both. Ground School took up half of each day and includes " How our parachutes were packed. " ( We sat on them in the Tiger Moth, but did NOT use them !)
Radio and more advanced instrument flying would come later in the course on other aircraft, some with different controls, ( throttle in right hand, stick in the left or even TWO engines and RADIO...!) Or with a much faster T/O, Cruising and landing speeds. For Night flying we used a flare path, with a glide slope pulsating light.
I passed the new examinations (until 1st Apr. it might have been for a "B Licence") and Ministry Flying tests and was issued with a CPL.(but without an I/R.) I had 150.hours (and 20 minutes!) I was employed the following day. Just Joy Riding, but a start. It was PAID experience for me.
Most people had to have their "Holidays at Home", because foreign currency was just not available ( it was limited to £25 pa. each)

My employer might be paid 7/6 by each of my two passengers for a "Quick Flip" or £1/10 for a longer trip. I also did some one or two hour charters to places like Farnborough and Hull.

[misd-agin]

I'm still focused on the girl I would choose

Agreed. Someone would go for personality, some would go for looks, some would go for body.

Flying requires a balance of various skills. Outstanding strength in one area is nice but unsatisfactory in any area is unacceptable.

Kind of like life. :ok:

Here's an opinon from 23+ yrs/12,500+ hrs of FMC use - the guys who complain about the automation and resort to immediate manual operations often show how poor their manual skills are at the same time. Ergo, it wasn't necessarily the automations fault. Automation's not perfect, stay ahead of it and monitor it.

[de facto]

It's official. Hand flying skills not that important any more, says Embry Riddle spokesman. See latest AVWEB

The FAA seems to disagree....

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2013/SAFO13002.pdf

[Tee Emm]

Modern jets, he says, generally are not hand-flown aircraft and some have been designed from the outset to be flown for nearly the entire flight on automation. And that, Panosian says, makes a pilot's need for systems and information management skills at least as important as their stick and rudder abilities, and arguably more important.


He said "arguably more important" I read that statement as clearly the man is automation addicted. Otherwise no reasonable thinking person would dismiss the vital necessity of stick and rudder skills having priority over automation monitoring.

[RAT 5]

There has been much chat on here about dumbing down of handling skills. The stories of 'the old days' are still relevant. To my knowledge aerodynamics has not changed, nor the law of physics. There may be some whizz bang box of tricks that is supposed to save us from ourselves, but it is still us looking out the window and assessing if all is going well, and if George or ourselves is doing the correct thing to maintain or correct the situation.
In my base training in 1981, B732, it was a requirement to do a minimum of 6 circuits, as now, but 3 had to be at night and the day ones included 1 non glide slope guidance. This is not now the case in both instances. Indeed I know of airlines that did not include night sessions in the TQ sim course until it was suggested by the SFI's as being a good idea. There are other airlines that do not allow landings with out glide slope guidance. In day time this could be VNAVPTH from the FMC, captains only, and at night it must be electronic.
The XAA's have allowed this dumbing down.
What chance have we got if the ruling authorities who are supposed to be the guardians of standards have allowed skills to be so, diluted. Are they fit for purpose as such guardians. If I was a CP or HOT I would set the bar much higher for my troops. Sadly most seem to just toe the required minimum line.

[bubbers44]

I'm still going with the smart girl with lots of other qualities. I never noticed any changes in hand flying or automation except automation throttle movements are like when a person first learns to fly and can't decide what throttle setting is required next so just keeps moving them. Hand flying gives a smoother turn onto the localizer but automation gets the job done too. Just not quite as smooth.

[AirRabbit]

Elsewhere on this forum, I attempted to point out that it is the responsibility of the pilot flying to place (and keep) the airplane at the correct (and desired) condition – meaning the correct (desired) position, attitude, altitude, flight path, and speed (some would describe the combination of altitude, flight path and speed as “energy state,” and that’s perfectly fine). It also happens that most airline pilots have a choice as to how he/she is to accomplish the task of placing and keeping the airplane in that continually safe condition:
1) through the use of the manual controls … for elevator (pitch), ailerons (bank), rudder (yaw), throttles (power), flaps (lift and drag), and/or speed brakes (also lift and drag);… and
2) through the use of the auto-flight controls … which ultimately result in using exactly the same controls (albeit, the flaps and speed brake controls are quite likely to remain manually applied if, or where needed).

I think that many pilots, if not most pilots, have seen a pilot essentially abdicate his/her responsibility as being the “pilot flying” by simply poking “George” in the ribs, and saying “you got it!” Well, “George” (an affectionately neutered term meaning “Auto Pilot”), is very good at doing some things – but the best George can do is what those humans, who designed, assembled, and installed all of George’s parameters, have allowed. That means that whatever it is that George is being asked to do simply must be within George’s capabilities – George doesn’t see, hear, or feel anything. All of George’s inputs are achieved through prior programming – and the term “programming” denotes some level of computation (read that as “computer) … and we all know that computers never make a mistake, they never get tired, they never quit, and they are always correct in what they determine is next in a sequence of events. Yeah … right!

Don’t get me wrong – there is no one who uses and depends on George more than I do. However, I sincerely believe that the pilot flying should always remain the pilot flying – i.e. continue to make all the decisions that are necessary, monitoring the control inputs, and through that vigilance, confirm that what the Autopilot is doing is correct for the situation at hand. Anything less is turning over control of “your” airplane to an inanimate “George” who will do whatever the on-board programming understands with the input it has recognized through the interfacing systems from which flight conditions are monitored and compared to what the control knobs have “asked for.”

I fully agree that a better course of training is required for all pilots who will be provided the latest in computer technology on board their airplane. But that does not, in my view, release those pilots from learning everything they need to know about what, when, where and how, to manually fly that same airplane. Whenever the airplane changes condition, position, attitude, flight path, or energy state, when the pilot flying did not desire that specific change … it is the responsibility of that pilot to use those controls to put the airplane back into a condition, position, attitude, flight path, AND energy state that is appropriate and safe.

As a pilot, you are always at a given point in space … and very likely you are aware of and know specifically where you want the airplane to be in the next second, the next minute, etc., and you have to know what you need to do to ensure that the airplane will really be at, or in, those parameters at that point in time. To do that, you need to be able to recognize your current set of parameters, and know what controls to use, in what order they need to be used, and the magnitude of those control positions that will be necessary to achieve the desired set of parameters. Where “George” only knows what the existing parameters are NOW, where “now” is repeated over and over at whatever speed the computer is operating. “George” reads what parameters have been entered into the Autopilot controls at the same rate. Then, “George” applies the controls to achieve the desired “condition” (which will be in accordance with a set of parameters previously programmed into “his” memory). If YOU allow George to fly YOUR airplane, “he” will do the best he has been programmed to do. If you trust George to do all that – you have a lot more trust in “him” than I … and that is not necessarily a compliment.

So … bottom line … in my not-so-humble opinion ... George is a great aid … but with all “his” greatness, “he” should not, must not, and in my airplane, will not, ever be the pilot flying.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Embry Riddle invented aviation :rolleyes:

[Teldorserious]

So being a pilot means turning on the AP and flying the heading bug on a canned flight plan? Is that it? Is that what everyone is training for?

Talk about a myopic point of view where none of the gear breaks, where pilots just follow a little white aircraft to show them where they are.

This industry is beyond sad, and currently at a real low point. I would say that while the gear is getting better, pilots are devolving.

[bubbers44]

I went to Embry Riddle for a couple of months and wasn't impressed. Everything cost more and I thought it would lead into an airline job but it didn't. I got my commercial license sign off in 66 and spent a season crop dusting because I knew the guy. I am not complaining but just go to your local airport and get your ratings. Don't waste your money at ER because you think you will get an airline job.

[Teldorserious]

Bubbers - I think ER and most of your university programs are selling a job, their connectons at the end of it. For a lucky few, some ab initios, maybe, but it's a high price. I ripped through my ratings for about a third what the local community college charged, but for the players it worked out for them..the guys that got the 200 hours, then instructed for 5 minutes, then vfr 135, then some 121 commuter. Some guys have a plan to work in aviaton that has little with being good or actually being a pilot, they want a seat and some epulets. Some of these guy have never had, nor probably ever will command an aircraft until the very very end, and even then, it will only be on a canned flight plan, a SOP book under the seat, a phone to the right, and a copilot telling them what to do, watching them.

To each his own, but I think it's a very sad day when a pilot says he's a pilot, full well knowing he can't fly a plane with out all the gear in front of him propping him up. Complete sham.

[yanrair]

Funny thing that people forget like the \E Riddle man.
Automation is fine but when the wind gets up over 25kts the pilot has to fly manually and the windier it gets the more this is true. So stick and rudder skills are as important as ever and until they make a plane that can tackle all the variations of weather it will remain so. Last winter in Dublin it was on max crosswind with rain on and off for days. The skills displayed by all the pilots was good to watch in these marginal conditions.

[doubleu-anker]

What he could have said was "practicing these skills is no longer a priority"

We don't get the chance to practice these skills. The a/p's are far superior than any human at manipulation of the aircraft controls. We are discouraged from practicing our skills. With the A/P engaged, it frees up a pilot to observe and see the big picture. This we all know.

What was remaining, the best practice was hand flying in the cruise. Now, with RVSM, you can't allow that now.

So unless you had the skills at the outset, they are difficult to pickup along the way, especially the younger people, on long haul.

I know pilots, (senior Captains) who are almost totally reliant on the automatics. I fear for them and their passengers if the aircraft had to be hand flown, especially at altitude. Not their fault, it is the system.

[Desert185]

My take on ER philosophy. Its not where the individual learns how to fly. Its all about the individual and his/her ability to fly. The great ones are great regardless of who teaches them to fly. Talent is talent.

[flarepilot]

hand flying says: embry riddle no longer needed.

[DownIn3Green]

Desert is correct...!

But on the other hand if new students are being taught this dribble by an ex-NWA greybeard endorsing E/R's policies...(I only say this because a true line pilot for a major would never drink this cup of Kool-Aid) it seems he is more worried about his tenure rather than the future of US Aviation...

And ergo, what chance do our future Captains have if this is what they are having drummed into them...?:ugh:

[DozyWannabe]

In Capt Panosian's defense, he doesn't appear to say hand-flying is not important, he's saying that systems management is AS important as hand-flying, which isn't quite the same thing.

+1

He's not saying that stick-and-rudder is less important, he's saying that both systems management and stick-and-rudder need to be taught and maintained to a very high standard!

(Which also means the thread title is inaccurate...)

[Capn Bloggs]

No, he said:
And that, Panosian says, makes a pilot's need for systems and information management skills at least as important as their stick and rudder abilities, and arguably more important.

Arguably more important. Which means Stick and rudder is lower on the importance list (in his opinion, of course).

he's saying that both systems management and stick-and-rudder need to be taught and maintained to a very high standard!
Where did he say anything like "stick and rudder must be maintained to a very high standard?".

[DozyWannabe]

Arguably more important. Which means Stick and rudder is lower on the importance list (in his opinion, of course).

Not the way I read it, but YMMV. To me it reads that *some* may argue understanding the automatics is more important, not necessarily that he would. And nowhere is it even implied that this would make stick-and-rudder unimportant.

Where did he say anything like "stick and rudder must be maintained to a very high standard?".

I would have thought that was a given. But he's categorically *not* saying that "handflying skills [are] not a priority", as the thread title implies.

[DownIn3Green]

Dozy,

Keep dozing and stay a wannabe....and stop trying to defend a moron "professor" regarding his stand on something you know nothing about...:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[DozyWannabe]

DownIn3Green:

I'm not trying to defend anybody, I'm just saying that the thread title is at odds with what the guy appears to be saying!

Put another way, if one were to say something like "Cyanide is arguably more deadly than arsenic", it's a very different thing from saying that arsenic is not deadly, or that the deadliness of arsenic is not of primary importance.

[Pugilistic Animus]

but he is stating hand flying is losing importance...in paraphrase

[bubbers44]

The solution is very simple. Learn to handfly your aircraft very well and know your systems as we have all for decades been doing then incorporate automation to make your job easier. If things start falling apart just do this the opposite direction as the AA video shows about of children of the magenta line.

[DozyWannabe]

but he is stating hand flying is losing importance...in paraphrase

I don't think he is, sir. Centaurus (for whom I have a lot of respect) seems to have read it that way, but I have to metaphorically squint and tilt my head a bit to do the same.

The reason for this is his use of the word "skill". Now, a lot of what I'm seeing from time to time seems to be a generalised sense that rote button-pushing and knob-twiddling on the FMS interface has allowed for the erosion of handflying skills. I may not do it for a living, but I fly enough as SLF that I have as strong an interest in the people up front doing it right as anyone - but I don't think that's what the person concerned is advocating here, and the reason for that is that rote use of the automatics is not particularly skilful.

*Skilled* use of the systems requires a fairly thorough understanding of said systems - modes of operation, correct usage with regard to phase of flight, understanding of failure modes and their consequences etc. Not to mention a thorough understanding of when it's time to switch the systems off and handle the aircraft yourself.

As such, the way I read it is that he's arguing for training on systems and information handling to provide a level of understanding that is as good as, or better than, stick-and-rudder handling is at the point where pilots begin their transition to ATPL (which is arguably when they will be at their most well-drilled).

[Pugilistic Animus]

...stick and rudder skills maybe falling down the list of important assets required by professional pilots...means?
great post Airrabbit:ok:

[RAT 5]

Learn to handfly your aircraft very well and know your systems as we have all for decades been doing then incorporate automation to make your job easier.

This should be the philosophy of all TQ courses. When the a/c were more basic this was the way, naturally. There was less automation to learn. Then, as more wizz-bang goodies came on board they took more of the attention. There were more buttons and one had to use them. Sadly, the basic flying practice was diluted perhaps to keep the TQ course to the same number of hours, but now there was more button pushing to learn. IMHO, both aspects have been diluted. In many TQ courses the syllabus calls for basic knowledge of the automatics, but not their full envelope and gotchas. Thus the new student does not know the flying envelope of the a/c, their own envelope nor the full capabilities of the automatics. "Fly to SOP's and you'll be fine". They stay in the very small centre of a big box. Real life sometimes takes you towards the edges. This is outside the 'comfort zone'. The comfort zone is defined by knowledge & experience. Now there are captains around with 4 years flying experience for 1 airline on 1 type. They've spent their whole lives inside their tiny comfort zone box; never been taught or shown where the real edges are. It is a hell of a shock if they go near them and their uncertain intervention could make matters worse, not better. SOP's are designed so you never go near the edges, but life is not like that, especially when Murphy & Mother Nature are involved.
I repeat again & again: the pax expect us to save the day when it goes pear shaped, or at least have an idea how to try. They do not expect us to be the source of the problem and then make it worse.

[Desert185]

Nicely said, Rat 5. The devil is in the details, but the details should be explored for complete understanding.

[777300ER]

Learn to handfly your aircraft very well and know your systems as we have all for decades been doing then incorporate automation to make your job easier.


Precisely! Let's face it - this used to be conventional wisdom. That is until the endless pursuit of cost savings commenced over the last couple of decades.

It is interesting to note that these detrimental attitude changes have only occurred at the airline level. The corporate sector seems relatively immune so far to the slash and burn antics that are taking place at many airlines. No self respecting jet-setter/tycoon would think it's a good idea to dumb down the cockpit to save a few bucks.

[Tee Emm]

The corporate sector seems relatively immune so far

That is because the corporate sector are mainly private flights that keep to themselves and attract no media interest. From anecdotal evidence the crews of these long range super Global Express jets are as much automation dependant as airline operators. One difference being they are mostly highly experienced crews rather than the mish-mash of low hour cadet co-pilots who form part of many airline flight deck crews.

[Teldorserious]

Everyone seems to think this is about handflying...it's actually a culture that has come to rely on the systems to do everything for the pilot - fly, navigate, provide SA, monitor systems -

At some level in aviation, it seems I can't be the only guy who has had the equipment failures, engine outs, issues...I just don't get how everyone can just assume everything works all the time and thus plan for nothing ever going wrong.

Can aviators as a whole really just sit there in a plane all day hoping the lights never go out? That to me is a very uncomfortable way to run out a career. Funny though, just about everyone I know is nervous as hell flying aircraft, where quite frankly I was starting to get bored as hell. Maybe that's the trick to a long career, stay scared by staying stupid and lazy.

[RAT 5]

I just don't get how everyone can just assume everything works all the time and thus plan for nothing ever going wrong.

Couldn't agree more. I still say we are the last chance insurance policy and we need to pay out when needed. The industry answer to a crash is to redesign the systems and include more back-ups, more warnings, more automatics, more..... more SOP's so the human doesn't go too near the edge......

And then they tell us not to touch anything and let the automatics run the show....and then they tells us that humans, especially the over educated ones that airlines still insist in putting into flight decks, are bad monitors of automatics and how it is the interface of human-automatic gizmos that is the problem. You can't have it both ways; you design the human out of the loop and then tell us we are not good at operating outside of the loop. If you change the techno-loop you need to change the type of human you put in the loop and change their function. It has been done piece-meal and it's not too smart. Are the XAA"s smart enough to devise a solution? Surely it's on their plate how to reduce pilot error, but I haven't heard of or become aware of any shattering initiatives. Are there any?

[main_dog]

Excellent posts, Rat 5.

[DozyWannabe]

The industry answer to a crash is to redesign the systems and include more back-ups, more warnings, more automatics, more..... more SOP's...

Well, to an extent that's understandable because while it's possible in today's data-driven world to provide verifiable improvements by making changes to systems, be they technological or procedural - it's not possible to do the same with the Mark 1 homo sapiens.

so the human doesn't go too near the edge...

But if you think about it, because most flights are automated between departure and approach/landing, is it not the case that the automatics are also capable of going too near the edge - and accidents result more often than not these days from their doing so?

As others allude to, do you not think that considering things in a respect of "human *vs.* automation" sort of sets things up to fail before we even look at the issue? For one thing, the spectre of the "pilotless airliner" has always only ever come from one place - the press - who, as we are well aware, by and large know diddly-squat about aviation or technology.

And then they tell us not to touch anything and let the automatics run the show....

Do they? I was under the impression that even the most gung-ho airlines had a policy of using automation "to the fullest extent possible". Ultimately that extent is at the discretion of the flight crew, is it not? And these are just the most extreme examples.

These are honest questions by the way - if you know differently, please let me know!

Additionally, sometimes the correct course of action *is* to leave the aircraft alone, regardless of the level of automation, because a correctly-trimmed aircraft should maintain a stable flightpath. Indeed, it seems that the broad consensus regarding the correct course of action in the AF447 scenario upon AP disconnect was to not make any immediate control inputs and observe (while of course being prepared to correct if necessary).

and then they tells us that humans, especially the over educated ones that airlines still insist in putting into flight decks, are bad monitors of automatics and how it is the interface of human-automatic gizmos that is the problem.

Again - which "they" are you referring to here? I've read the point on humans being bad monitors of automation, which is why there have been buzzers, lights, stick-shakers et al. to alert the pilot that something is amiss and usually give a clue as to where their attention should be directed.

Interfaces and ergonomics are usually a separate issue from this, and there has been a steady improvement over the decades that cannot be denied. Usually though, it's less often the case that the interface is bad than it is that the system has not been thoroughly understood and trained - not just at the pilot level, but all the way up to ops and management.

You can't have it both ways; you design the human out of the loop and then tell us we are not good at operating outside of the loop.

...

Surely it's on their plate how to reduce pilot error, but I haven't heard of or become aware of any shattering initiatives. Are there any?

For a start, there has never been an intent to "design the human out of the loop", simply to reduce the workload on the human by automating tasks that a machine tends to do better - i.e. usually the rote and repetitive ones.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Hiller Aviation Museum last week during a trip to San Carlos, and I marvelled at the size and complexity of the FE station and overhead panel on their 747-100 flight deck - I already had a ton of respect for the folks at that station and believe me it got kicked up a couple of notches seeing it in the flesh. But it did make me wonder just how much more complexity in terms of managing all that equipment the human brain could handle, and I could see why there was a drive to simplify that with technology as aircraft became even more complex.

So anyway - the intent, no matter what the press said, was not to take the human out of the loop but to make being "in the loop" require less direct action on the part of the human. This becomes even more useful, in theory at least, given that the skies were only ever going to get more crowded and the workload in terms of flight management was going to continue to increase.

I think the term "pilot error" is beginning to fall out of use - by accident investigators at least - because the evidence has shown that it's too easy to provide a 'catch-all' answer when most incidents and accidents are far more complex in nature. The problem is that such complexity doesn't lend itself well to a TV soundbite or newspaper headline, so you tend to find that if pilot action is mentioned at any point during a briefing or press conference, then the press will report "pilot error", regardless of the contents of the rest of the briefing.

Ultimately there are no easy answers or quick fixes, but speaking for myself as a regular SLF, techie and lifelong aviation devotee I hear and respect your concerns. At the same time though I'm concerned that the adversarial take on technology and pilots does more harm than good. I know, because I've got the notes and documents here, that even the A320 (and by extension her bigger sisters) was designed around the pilot and with input from pilots - and if airline management are using the existence of technology to put the pilot in the role of "last-chance saloon", then that is a flagrant misuse of what the technology was designed to do.

Technology is nothing more than a tool to be used. A complex and powerful tool, certainly - but a tool nonetheless. Your non-crew management will have been sold on the "magic box" idea by the sales guys - same as always - and the onus unfortunately then falls on you to bring that perception to somewhere nearer reality. For what it's worth, if you need a techie in your corner to help you do so one day, I'm more than happy to assist in any way I can.

[Pugilistic Animus]

You do not have to be Patty Wagstaff and be able to do perfect rolling circles
you should be able to fly straight and level climb, decend, turn, speed up, slow down, and any combination of above under IMC with turbulence...that`s it you`re done ATP-

[No Fly Zone]

I have t o agree with you that this fellow has missed the boat. Yes, modern transport aircraft ARE designed to be flown primarily with their automation on, but WTF happens when most of it fails or is otherwise unusable? The pilot with stick and rudder skills and some current practice has a chance to save the bird and lives. Those without the skills probably do not. Frankly, I don't even call them pilots anymore, but systems operators. Pilots have those skills in their back pockets and know how to use them.

[latetonite]

Blame it a lot to the industry. The average Ab Initio Cadet has a Commercial License with Instrument rating. And 200 hrs under his belt. He does not have any aviation background, and will kill himself if he would take his training aircraft solo on a real instrument flight.
Now you train him "up to standards" flying a commercial airliner from the right seat, using automatics as much as possible. A raw data approach, stabilized by the A/P and with A/T first, is a challenge. A 15 kt X-wind an emergency.
Now you want him to 'maintain hand flying skills'? What skills?

[bubbers44]

I agree no skills. If you don't get the skills after your basic ratings you will probably never get them with half the airlines. After crop dusting, instructing, charter flying and corporate jet time finally got lucky one day and got my airline job with 5500 hrs, 1000 PIC jet.

I was lucky to get hired because every one else had the same quals. My check ride was in an Electra sim I had never flown with multiple approaches with one, two and three engines shut down. All to a missed approach except the last when at 200 ft another check airman pulled the fire handle on my only engine. This was with no visual.

Now I guess you push the right buttons. By the way it had to be hand flown.

[Teldorserious]

Just a bunch of noise.

You aren't going to get much critical thought on this forum..

Last week, CRM good, this week, CRM bad.
Last week, abintio good, this week abintio bad
Last week, rudders good, this week rudders bad
Last week, hand flying good, this week hand flying bad.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I have one question for Mr head of the airline Puppy Mill factory. Show me how your training program will produce a guy/gal that can land the both engine failed Airbus in the Hudson and have everyone walk away.

Human variability will ensure that not every graduate of your program will be that good, but it is a sad day when the head of the school has essentially said that for my students that level of stick and rudder skills is not even worth aspiring for. :ugh:

[latetonite]

to Bubbers44:
I happen to have flown the Electra L-188.
I had several engine failures in the aircraft, and did a few three engine ferries.
Also lost one day all hydraulics, and learned to fly this thing manual.
However, if you could manage this aircraft on ONE engine, you certainly earned your airline job..
If you are talking about the sim in Seattle, it was just a procedure trainer.

[A37575]

My check ride was in an Electra sim I had never flown with multiple approaches with one, two and three engines shut down. All to a missed approach except the last when at 200 ft another check airman pulled the fire handle on my only engine. This was with no visual.


My sympathies are with you. What a dreadful indictment on the poor quality of "check??" pilots in those days. That sort of disgraceful behaviour deserves the check pilots to be thrown out of the simulator and demoted to a desk job for a few years - then re-trained properly but this time as co-pilots only.

Reminded me of a story related to me by a former RAAF C130 Hercules pilot undergoing conversion on the first C130A simulator at RAAF base Richmond.

Similar scenario to that you described. The military check pilot failed multiple engines during ILS leaving one inboard going by the time they reached the outer marker. "What are you going to do, now" screamed the instructor" - himself only 30 years old so no grizzled veteran.

The pilot under training said "THIS is what I'm going to do now" and promptly rolled the Herc simulator inverted and went in like a bomb. The simulator popped lots of circuit breakers and it took the technicians a few hours to get it going again.

Simulator instructors and airline check captains often have someone else's career in their hands. There is still no shortage of clowns that abuse that power and who should never have been promoted into the job.

[bubbers44]

Actually I felt it was a blast. The sim was at SNA and I got hired at Air California. The check airmen were great and I got hired. They were just having fun.

I was just trying to show the standards 30 years ago were much higher than now. Nobody in my class had less that 5,000 hrs and lots of jet time. When we got hired our first year pay was 700 per mo. One year FO pay was 4,000 per mo.

I am happy the way my career progressed and ended up. We had a great time and the check airmen were our drinking buddies on upgrades to captain. They were for us all the way. They also knew we could all fly before they taught us so their job was easy. Not always the case now.

[AirRabbit]

I’ve been watching this thread for a while now and it seems to me that everyone is mostly “chipping” around the edges. In effect, almost everything said here has some element of truth but no one has hit the nail on “the head” … and, of course, that’s just my opinion.

Anyone who thinks that “automation” has no place in modern jet transports just isn’t living in today’s world … but by the same token, anyone who thinks that “hand flying skills” are outmoded and unnecessary is also not living in today’s world – but both of those groups are not themselves living in the same world. Automatics provide a way for the airplane to be flown much more accurately than can be done manually. BUT automatics do not think – automatics do ONLY what they have been programmed to do. If the “ones” and “zeros” align in a particular way, the airplane banks right … if they line up in another particular way, the airplane banks left … but if the “ones” and “zeros” do not align with either direction, the probability is that the airplane will maintain wings level. Bottom line, today’s airplane control computers are vastly complex and are capable of things that the most imaginative engineer could think of … but … I am staunchly of the opinion that we’re still a long way short of full artificial intelligence that I’d put in charge of an airliner full of passengers and cargo.

The name of the game is MONEY. Dollars, Euros, Yen, or what-have-you. It is the bottom line that counts in today’s businesses … and it’s not just limited to airlines … everyone is on that same money-limited bandwagon. It’s the profit margin – the difference between the “in-come” and the “out-go,” plain and simple.

The only “Income” generator is passengers – and to some very small degree – some cargo. So, given this, how does an airline attract passengers … as there are usually more than one airline traveling between any two city pairs (except in very limited cases – and those are getting fewer and farther between)? You attract passengers by offering something other than simple transportation – and schedule is probably at the top of the list – because the most money is likely made off of the business oriented passenger (closer to or at “full fare”) presuming that the seats that are occupied are occupied something on the order of 40-60 percent by business travelers. Of course, the airline has to go from and to where the passenger wants/needs to travel – and sometimes that is on a rather extremely short notice basis. So, if you’re one of several operators serving 2 cities – and the schedules are somewhat equal … what can you provide that would drive the customer to your door? Service. Amenities. Comfort. And, what I think is most important to those business travelers … arrival time … which is directly connected to a “non-stop” operation.

Contrast this singular (or almost singular) income generator with the kinds of things that register under the “out-go” column: Airplanes, ground service vehicles, ground facilities (passengers, cargo, maintenance), office buildings, fuel, landing fees, parking fees, insurance (physical facilities and personnel), all of those other money-draining aspects of doing business (advertising, reservations, paper and ink supplies, etc.), and the biggie … personnel costs – the salaries of your employees. Oh, one other cost – training. What part of an airline personnel structure would you think has the biggest impact on training cost? Of course, there are some persons whose training can be expensive, but then you have to consider how many of those employees are necessary to do the job that needs to be done. Of course, you and I know that it is flight crew training that very likely close to the top or, in fact, leads this expense category. There only 2 requirements to train flight crews … logic (i.e., not everyone can fly a plane) and regulation. If there is any way in which an airline can reduce the cost of training the greater the potential to increase the profit margin for that airline. If there is any way to cause an airline’s profit margin to be impacted (outside of major physical facilities purchases – airplanes, corporate headquarters buildings, etc. and I'm not sure any thing would do it to the same level of impact...) is to increase the training provided to flight crews.

Being a long-time advocate of education and training – of course, I know where I would want to focus … but I also recognize that indiscriminate increases in training time or unproductive or potentially unnecessary training can have a significant impact on the highly important “bottom line.” But at the same time, there are very few things an airline can do to ensure the safety of their operation, and thereby maintain or improve their reputation with revenue sources … passengers, and, at the same time, provide an incentive for reducing insurance costs.

The difficult aspect is determining what is absolutely necessary for deciding what needs to be trained, how well, using what equipment, how to determine satisfactory training levels, how frequently should that training occur, and, well … I’ll let you add all the other aspects of training with which you are familiar. Most airline operations are governed by a regulatory agency – so … how much authority should that regulatory agency have with respect to these questions? What kind of competency should exist in personnel INSIDE that regulatory agency?

I think these questions are equally applicable to both manual and automatic flight control. Of course, I have thought about this for most of my career … and I have suggestions that I can make (and to some extent have made) … but my opinions, until heard and analyzed, are probably no better than anyone’s opinions – whether or not they have any knowledge or experience in this particular aspect of aviation.

[bubbers44]

Automation is great and has advanced technology but sometimes it fails so you always need at least one pilot who knows how to hand fly. Hand flying is quite easy if you do it once in a while.

[stilton]

What makes you think this idiot is a Captain of anything other than a 172 ?


Embry Riddle, give me a break :mad:

[GlueBall]

...when A332 pilots hand fly and stall in cruise at night.
...when B738 pilots stall and crash on final approach in VMC.
...when DHC-8 pilots pull on the stick, reduce flaps when stick shaker/pusher activates.
...when B772 pilots hand fly short final approach and hit the sea wall on a clear day. :{

[AirRabbit]

Industry Is seriously DEFICIENT In Manual Flying Skills...
...when A332 pilots hand fly and stall in cruise at night.
...when B738 pilots stall and crash on final approach in VMC.
...when DHC-8 pilots pull on the stick, reduce flaps when stick shaker/pusher activates.
...when B772 pilots hand fly short final approach and hit the sea wall on a clear day.

With something like 30,000 flights per day (10,950,000 per year) in the US and 100,000 flights per day (36,500,000 per year) worldwide, I know that I would be hard-pressed to say that the 4 accidents referenced are indicative of an “industry seriously deficient in manual flying skills.” The first 3 cited occurred in 2009, with 2 of those occurring in the same month, February, and the last one occurring in 2013.

However, please, do not take these comments to mean that I do not think a problem is becoming evident – because, I think that a problem does exist and I think it is growing – not diminishing. What is that problem? I think it’s pilot competency – many call it “awareness” or “CRM” – others say it’s probably a lack of “realism” in training … but I think those are somewhat easily applied terms which, in turn, drives a good share of the proposals for correction. Clearly, it’s hard to address a problem when it’s not clear as to what the problem really is; and I believe it is THAT … not being able to clearly recognize THE problem … that is the real problem – and I believe it is more than likely that the industry is throwing what they believe to be “corrective actions” into the mix and remain puzzled as to why things still go wrong. May I say it this way … when driving along the highway you notice that your car seems to be “decelerating” quite abruptly and then accelerating to the speed you had – and this happens every once in a while … perhaps twice in 1 month and then not reoccurring for 6 months. The mechanic at the local repair shop says that he’s heard from the manufacturer that it is likely that one of the brake cylinders is apparently activating, and causing the results you see and feel. After changing all the brake cylinders, changing the brake pads, replacing the brake lines and changing brake fluid a couple of times over a couple of years – you still occasionally experience the same problem. Wouldn’t you get the impression that the cause of the problem is elsewhere? Or would you opt for changing to a different brand of tires? Check the tire pressure? Perhaps fill the tires with that “fix-a-flat” compound that seals small leak from inside the tire?

OK … maybe that’s not a really good analogy … but my point is that if we continue to make the kinds of training changes that we’ve made in the past, we’re likely not going to get any difference from what those changes have provided in the past. I think it’s fair to say that most pilots know what training is necessary to operate a jet transport airplane the way we do around the world. We have to know how the darn thing works – and putting more gizmos aboard, merely means more training on what those gizmos do and what happens when they don’t. Add another gizmo, add more training. Right? Well, maybe not more; maybe we can just pick what training is most important. OK – who picks that? Are there time ceilings on the amount of time we train pilots? We’ve already gone from classroom training to CBT, and CBT from home or the hotel, and we’ve bought less expensive training aids to keep the need for full flight simulation to the minimum when we have to visit the training center. Well, how’s that working out? We’re talking about training … physical and mental training. We all recognize that there are a lot sports teams that depend on physical and mental training to get their teams ready to play during “the season.” Do we see these professional sports teams putting a “cap” on the amount of training those players receive? No, certainly not. The pre-season training sessions are long and demanding. But it doesn’t stop there – in US football (no, not soccer, guys) there are week-long training sessions prior to each game. In baseball there is batting practice and field training for a bit prior to each game, and pitchers always practice before they enter the game. Why is this? Sure, it's good to get the muscles warm, but it goes beyond this as well … repetitive psychomotor training, repetitive practice for physical and mental coordination are integral components of training for successful performance – and that’s true for all positions on the team.

I think it is time – actually, past time – to take a look at how airline crews are trained … what they are trained on … how often … to what standards. Fortunately, in my mind anyway, there are a couple of international working groups that are working NOW, as we speak/write, that are attempting to address those questions – as well as questions about what is required for the major pieces of training equipment used in pilot training programs … flight simulation equipment. They are also addressing the background, experience, and training for both flight instructors and evaluators as well. These groups are made up of regulators, airlines, pilots, groups representing airline unions and pilot unions, professional trainers and educators, providers of pilot training, manufacturers of pilot training equipment – flight simulation training devices, and a host of other professionals and interested parties. I think THESE efforts are the BEST bet to finally get to an understanding of what is required. Anyone who passes on the opportunity to participate or provide information to these groups, is saying that they don’t care what occurs, because they have their own interests. How do YOU feel? What do YOU think? What do YOU want? ...and don't tell ME ... take your experience and your opinions directly to and get involved in one of those groups!

[GlueBall]

..."How do YOU feel? What do YOU think? What do YOU want?"

I don't want to be chastised by new-schooled, senior check airman, for having come off the A/P & A/T too soon at 4000' during a vectored ILS in VMC; that I should have waited until after intercept of localizer; that company SOP calls for maximum use of automation in all phases of flight.

As far as I'm concerned, (20K hrs), the training industry is going to the dogs with rabid automation. :{

[AirRabbit]

I don't want to be chastised by new-schooled, senior check airman, for having come off the A/P & A/T too soon at 4000' during a vectored ILS in VMC; that I should have waited until after intercept of localizer; that company SOP calls for maximum use of automation in all phases of flight.

As far as I'm concerned, (20K hrs), the training industry is going to the dogs with rabid automation.


I couldn’t agree with you more solidly … :D ... in fact, I much prefer to have pilots actually “hand-fly” their airplanes somewhat regularly (something like once a month), to include departures up to something above 15,000 feet and descent from approximately the same altitude, to include the arrival, traffic pattern (if appropriate), approach, and landing. I’m not necessarily of the opinion that a lot of value is found in “hand-flying” straight and level while at cruise, although a periodic hand-flown change in altitude might be worth the effort periodically as well.

However, you and I can agree or disagree and that would be the end of it. I am trying to provide some motivation for pilots – all over the globe – to take these issues to their regulatory authority and ask for some support in assuring that each pilot has, and has not lost, his/her ability to fly the airplane that they are flying. It sounds redundant, but sometimes redundancy is a good thing. If the individual regulatory authority doesn’t appear interested, I would whole heartedly recommend contacting IFALPA, ICAO, and the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society to see what you, as an individual, can do to make your concerns and your desires known to someone who may be able to do something about it.

[bubbers44]

Glueball, it is so obvious you are right after the SFO incidents. Too much automation requirements on clear days dulls your flying skills to the point some pilots can't do a visual approach with some airlines.

[barit1]

I should think that the E/R "aviation educator" is - in a statistical sense - correct. Systems management is what it's all about, and those automatics never fail. Well, hardly ever (quoth Captain Corcoran)

But then again the ILS is sometimes shut down, eh?

[AirRabbit]

The FAA seems to disagree....
Quote:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../SAFO13002.pdf



The salient portion of the SAFO referenced in de facto’s reference, above, says the following:

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

It appears there is not only no FAA prohibition against a pilot’s remaining proficient in “manually controlled flight operations,” this document indicates that the FAA has suggested that airlines develop and incorporate policies that ensure pilots have the appropriate opportunities to exercise such manual flight operating skills.

In the US, at least, a decision maker at any US airline cannot say that having a formalized process for ensuring their pilots achieve and maintain manual flight operating skills is NOT authorized by the regulator. Therefore, those airlines that do have such a formalized process have decided that the benefits of having such a program outweigh whatever detriments might be cited; and, those airlines that do not have such a formalized process have either chosen to not make such a decision or have decided that the detriments of having such a program do, in fact, outweigh the benefits.

May I suggest that those persons who believe the detriments do, indeed, outweigh the benefits, are very likely not aviators themselves and, dare I say it, probably should NOT be making decisions about the process by which the pilots working for them obtain and maintain their competency. Logic would very likely reveal that the long-term success of an operation with such leadership is, most definitely, not assured. Of course, if that person is the owner or a significant purse-string holder – it may be that this person is involved in the business only for as long as it is beneficial to him or her.

The alternative, equally applicable to all aviation operations, would be for the regulator to define in the rules, the requirements for training, proficiency, as well as for recurrent training and maintaining individual competency. Believe me, I am fully aware of what it would mean for any regulatory authority to operate with unwanted and/or unwarranted intrusiveness – but if that intrusiveness could be mitigated to an acceptable degree – say by ensuring that any such regulatory authority or requirement is developed in a mutually beneficial and mutually participative atmosphere – I believe it could be beneficial to virtually everyone concerned.

However, I believe the only way such an action can be started is through an effort of the regulated to approach the regulator to propose such a process. Additionally, I am of the opinion that if it is done correctly and with full openness, I think it will work – to the advantage of all of us. What do the participants here think?

[latetonite]

I think you should learn to, and be able to fly, before you sell your skills to the public.

[Centaurus]

Company SOP may or may not encourage hand flying when appropriate. The fact remains there are airline pilots so wedded to the automatics, that they have become apprehensive (scared fartless) or possibly plain lazy, of hand flying; apart from the take off and touch down. Once these personalities are promoted (as they somehow inevitably are) into check pilot positions, some become quite paranoid and insist that the automatics must be used at all times.

Recently there was the case where a check pilot acting as an F/O criticised the captain for hand flying the departure to 15,000 ft where the autopilot was engaged. The captain explained that the weather was fine, there were no pressing ATC requirements and that he simply enjoyed keeping his hand in on hand flying. The check captain disagreed, saying the company policy was all automatics from 500 ft after take off.

In fact, there was no such company policy. It was the check captain's personal policy. And these types are out there in every airline. So, it is not always a "company" policy where hand flying is discouraged, but more often a personal preference of the pilot in command. The unfortunate first officer then becomes a captive audience to the other chap's irrationality

[bubbers44]

Check airmen know no more about flying than line pilots, they chose to be check airmen. I told the story of how my check airman acting as my FO screwed up the automation so much out of SJO I just hand flew our departure and went opposite what he had programmed to follow our clearance. He finally caught up but I wish I had a first year FO that flight to make the automation match our clearance. It is hard to tell your check airman checking you out he doesn't have a clue what he is doing.

[bubbers44]

I am repeating this but my first B767 check out with a check airman as FO he wanted to take the leg to Dulles but he had it so screwed up high and fast I told him autopilot and autothrottle off, pull the speed brakes out, idle power, configure because he forgot to arm the approach mode so flew through glide slope and we dove down and salvaged the approach. We were to meet for breakfast but he didn't show up. He paced the grounds outside all night because he was so upset with himself. They aren't any better than us line guys.

[AirRabbit]

So … what I’m getting from this thread so far is that most of the “older” heads here believe that “hand flying” can be productive – and at least some here actually practice that belief, even if somewhat secretively – and most believe that the reason it’s not seen more regularly is due to either management edict or check airmen “self-gratifying preferences” shoved onto the line guys.

It seems to me that if this “practice” can be beneficial, but someone, someplace has decided “not-on-my-airline/airplane,” things are likely not to change unless someone in a superior position (either in fact or in theory) to those who are currently “having it their own way,” clearly says what will be done and makes this “hand flying” exposure a regular occurrence. Again, it seems that this will occur only if one of 2 things take place; 1) similar thinking line pilots pool their resources and buy the airline from the current owner and make such a practice logical and expected; or 2) the regulator adds such a requirement to the regulations and thereby makes such a practice necessary to comply with the rules, if not logical and expected as well … and I’ll leave to your imagination which of those alternatives is the most logically to occur … at least, in my not-so-humble opinion.

And … as long as I’m expressing my opinions, the apparently clear outcome – should neither of the above alternatives be instituted – is the collective recognition we all will have as the number of apparently silly, stupid, forgetful, incompetent, or otherwise unprofessional accidents or incidents continues to climb. So … do we all continue to complain or do we do something about it? I know what I’m doing … and I’ll keep on doing it until this idiocy ceases or I can’t continue. :ouch:

[c100driver]

I told the story of how my check airman acting as my FO screwed up the automation so much out of SJO I just hand flew our departure and went opposite what he had programmed to follow our clearance. He finally caught up but I wish I had a first year FO that flight to make the automation match our clearance.

and

I am repeating this but my first B767 check out with a check airman as FO he wanted to take the leg to Dulles but he had it so screwed up high and fast I told him autopilot and autothrottle off, pull the speed brakes out, idle power, configure because he forgot to arm the approach mode so flew through glide slope and we dove down and salvaged the approach.

It appears to me that you have just confirmed the E-R Educator comment that Automation Management is at least as important as Manipulation Skills?

And that, Panosian says, makes a pilot's need for systems and information management skills at least as important as their stick and rudder abilities,

Good Manipulation Skills needed to save Poor Automation Management?:eek:

However Good Automation Skills does not equal "no requirement for Good Manipulation Skills"

[stilton]

I would much prefer to fly with a Pilot who is not the 'master of automation' but can click off the a/p and a/t and fly the Aircraft competently.


If you seriously think that being an automation wonder makes you a good Pilot you are in the wrong business.


A legend in your own mind.

[latetonite]

In the simulator I see several space cadets flying a perfect healthy aircraft into the solid, on automatics.
When flying manual, this seems to happen less often.