Logging auto pilot time?

[9 lives]

After a bit of flying with a friend yesterday, and watching at Duxford, while waiting to takeoff, The Spitfire, Harvard, and Chipmunk, I was reminded of the beauty of aircraft which are "flown" by the pilot. While reminiscing at the pub last night with a fellow flier, we both agreed, that for many thousands of hours we each had, less than 50 hours total was watching the aircraft in our command while it flew on autopilot, all the rest was hand flown. We were duly satisfied with ourselves.

Then as the discussion grew to so recent crashes, we mused about pilots with many thousands of hours, most of which were watching as the autopilot flew the plane. We wondered: Should pilots be credited with flying experience hours in their log, which were autopilot flown hours?

[ChickenHouse]

I get beer and chips for the answers, this maybe will be a long thread. Now, come on, you traditionalists, modernists, philosopher, airliner and bush pilots, start the chickenbattle ;-).

On reflection of the latest biannual experiences and the training status of now 12-20 almost-all-A/P-hours former students, I vote for "No", at least all PPL(A) qualifying hours should be flown by hand.

[phiggsbroadband]

There was one, let me call him 'A Ferry Pilot', that would set his alarm clock to wake him in 4 hours whilst the auto-pilot got on with the flying of the long distance route.
So its... George = P1 Self = P2.

[India Four Two]

ST,

You have raised an interesting question. I shall be interested in the responses.

Thinking about the 40+ types I have flown, I only remember autopilots in three of them, only one of which I used. That was in a Cirrus, which I flew specifically to see how the electronic systems worked.

A long time ago, I obtained an IR in a non-autopilot-equipped aircraft and I felt at the time that if I ever did any serious IMC trips, an autopilot would be nice.

Having said that, I agree with you that hand-flying any aircraft, but in particular a nice one, for example a Chipmunk, is very satisfying.

[foxmoth]

Logged hours as a pure number are IMHO totally irrelevant, it is down to the person looking at the logbook to decide how relevant the hours are for whatever purpose it it being looked at, if someone was to look at mine in relation to a job flying a dH Rapide then there would be about 18,000 hours on big jets that had little or no bearing on it and a couple thousand that were relevant, being on Tailwheel and light twins. If I were after a job with a big Airline the numbers would be the other way round.:ok:

[perantau]

With or without automation, how much experience is garnered from an 8-hour sector as opposed to 8 one-hour sectors?

[Pace]

You are logging the hours as PILOT in command not autopilot in command :E

Maybe the autopilot or George should have its own log book and be programmed to keep it :E

Fact is there are many automated systems or pilot aids which make up a modern aircraft and the Pilot in command is in charge of operating and flying the aircraft which will also include constant monitoring of the systems autopilot included. ready to take over at will if anything is not doing its job properly!

I have flown a number of older Citations and a few have had suspect autopilot behaviour, pitching on altitude capture etc.
workarounds include disconnecting manually levelling and reconnecting to stop the PAX having a boat ride as the aircraft pitched up and down.

So as in life trust nothing including the autopilot. The danger is relying on these systems for lack of piloting skills and more and more accidents are due to lack of piloting skills and reliance on pilot aids to cover up those lack of skills.

so all these systems autopilot included should be there to take the work load off pilots not to substitute for poor pilots flying out of their ability zones

Pace

[custardpsc]

Pace, you are dead right there. Whilst my autopilot experiences are humbler than yours, I think one ought to be able to log double time with some autopilots, as you have to keep an eye on the autopilot and its limitations as well as everything else. A KAP140 is the devils own work, and I have had one put me in a spiral as well as set off 180 deg off course in nav mode, to say nothing of having to pay attention to the limitations, not setting too high a vertical speed at altitude for fear of stalling etc.

[ShyTorque]

Many autopilots are like naughty co-pilots. You have to watch the bu&&ers or they'll catch you out when you're least expecting it. But that's what we get paid a bit extra for.

Those in the know accept that there are big differences between aircraft types and roles, some have the "benefit" of long periods on autopilot and some don't. As a mere helicopter pilot I have a relatively low number of hours compared to airline pilots of my age/experience, which used to bother me somewhat, but now it doesn't at all. To put it in perspective, some twenty years ago I was asked to fly a long haul airline pilot in my spare front seat. After we had done what was then a typical hour and three quarter sortie, with nineteen short sectors to small HLSs, he commented that I had flown the equivalent of about six months of takeoffs and landings in his job. He said my workload seemed almost unbelieveable. It wasn't, it was just different to what he was used to.

I was later repaid the privilege (jump seat for most of LHR-HKG) by an old RAF colleague who now flew B747s instead of F-4s. I was bored after a couple of hours in the cruise and we still had nine hours to go! I commented and my friend told me he found the job terribly mundane compared to his military flying. I realised at that point that airline flying really wasn't for me and although I had recently gained a commercial licence for fixed wing, I decided I wouldn't be needing it much. In fact, I've never used it after almost twenty five years and no longer bother to keep it current.

[kaitakbowler]

ST- If that LHR-HKG was into Kai Tak then the hand flown IGS onto 13 would have got your attention.

PM

[ShyTorque]

ST- If that LHR-HKG was into Kai Tak then the hand flown IGS onto 13 would have got your attention.

Yes, I regularly flew them myself (CLK was after my time). The NDB approach was also interesting, with the figure of eight descent from the CC hold.

[Pace]

not setting too high a vertical speed at altitude for fear of stalling etc.

CustardPSP

Never use VS for climbing especially high altitude! either use IAS mode if you have it or manually trim the climb with the autopilot trim wheel or the main trim wheel

manually trimming at least it focuses your attention when you are trying to coax more climb.

VS can be a killer and a number of accidents have occurred with a distracted pilot in VS and the stall that occurs

Use vertical speed for descent only

Not really directed at you as I don't think you meant that but a point worth noting

Pace

[Gertrude the Wombat]

VS can be a killer and a number of accidents have occurred with a distracted pilot in VS and the stall that occurs
Why TF would anyone write software that decided that the best thing to do with an impossible command was to stall the aircraft?? - I'm sure I'd have been sacked if I'd ever done anything like that.

[westhawk]

VS CAN BE a killer ONLY when the "pilot" doesn't monitor the airspeed and adjust pitch with the selected VS rate to maintain speed appropriately. Other modes CAN get you in trouble too!

In some airplane/autopilot combinations (Westwind, Hawker and Lear in my experience) VS is the only vertical mode other than pitch hold that doesn't have a tendency to "hunt" all over the sky and feel like a rowboat riding the waves at times. This includes some of the digital/glass types too. Don't let the so-called "airspeed protection" of FLCH, FLC, IAS or mach hold modes tempt you to look away for too long! The more complex the mode, the more variables there are to catch you out.

They installed the ASI there on the panel for a reason. Whatever vertical mode chosen, airspeed is a RESULT and must be monitored at all times. I realize some pilots may be indoctrinated to, or have personal experiences which make them more comfortable in other modes, but VS mode bears no more responsibility for pilots failing to monitor their performance continuously than any other F/D mode. I don't believe it's wise to trust ANY F/D mode enough to justify inattention. With vertical and A/T modes like Vflch minding the store, modern history seems to have shown that pilots are even more likely to mentally "check out" of the control loop when relying on "protection" modes. VS or any other mode is only as "safe" as the pilot's oversight of it's performance.

I haven't seen this aspect of airplane operation argued about for quite some time now so thanks for the opportunity!



westhawk

[westhawk]

Why TF would anyone write software that decided that the best thing to do with an impossible command was to stall the aircraft?? Answer:

They don't. At least not with respect to VS mode. Get kinda slow? You bet, if nobody is minding the store. As for older analogue systems that don't use "software" it's possible. Provided nobody is minding the store...

westhawk

[9 lives]

VS CAN BE a killer ONLY when the "pilot" doesn't monitor the airspeed and adjust pitch with the selected VS rate to maintain speed appropriately.

So if "George" is delegated PIC, and not monitored, the human pilot definitely should not be logging the time!

Logged hours as a pure number are IMHO totally irrelevant, it is down to the person looking at the logbook to decide how relevant the hours are for whatever purpose it it being looked at

Yes. And I trust that hiring Chief Pilots/HR people are making this distinction. Four Asiana pilots forgot to fly a plane in the most basic way, because they probably had become so used to George doing it, that not only did they not, they did not even know how to correct things when some manual intervention was required.

Aside from testing the autopilot in the 182 amphibian last summer, as a part of acceptance test flying, I have been a hands and feet pilot only for the last 25 years. Unfortunately, I can imagine how George watcher pilots can forget to, and worse, how to, fly a plane.

[Pace]

WestHawk

The Single Pilot incident in a CJ with an emergency landing at Leeds and a structurally damaged aircraft which thankfully landed safely was caused by pilot distraction and the aircraft being in VS mode at high altitude.

The Aircraft stalled and lost a lot of altitude before being recovered

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Cessna%20525A%20Citation%20CJ2+%20N380CR%2001-15.pdf

WestHawk I realise this incident was over 40K in thin air where the margin between IAS and stall is small a point where the pilot should have had full concentration on the panel not wind charts! Never the less there have been similar incidents in piston aircraft lower down.
I never understood why with Doncaster near by with a major Cessna service centre and a huge runway he went back into Leeds with its notorious winds turbulence low cloud etc
Had he had a speed defined mode selected this would not have happened?
whatever it points to the fact that never take an autopilot for granted or a mode selected for granted its a pilot assist not a pilot replace and ignore it at your peril )))

There have been a spate of accidents with advanced technology of pilot assists including autopilots where pilots have relied on these systems to fly in conditions where their abilities do not match the equipment and technology available in the aircraft.



Pace

[fireflybob]

Why TF would anyone write software that decided that the best thing to do with an impossible command was to stall the aircraft?? - I'm sure I'd have been sacked if I'd ever done anything like that.

Autopilots on large transport a/c like the B737 have reversion modes - if you climb in VS and the speed drops to a certain figure the mode will change so that you do not stall (although the resultant speed is below the normal minimum).

Climbing in VS with an autopilot with no reversion mode is a potential threat especially at higher levels when the performance is running out of steam.

[Pace]

The pilot had previously noticed his aircraft “hunting” in pitch in FLC mode and had therefore decided to operate in VS mode during the climb. Whilst the use of VS mode in the climb is not prohibited by the AFM, it exposed the aircraft to the risk of entering a low-energy state during the climb. Without greater systems knowledge the pilot was unaware of the additional risks involved in the use of VS mode. Therefore he was unable to make an informed decision regarding this autoflight mode.
The autopilot will, in this mode, prioritise maintaining vertical speed over airspeed and pilot vigilance and intervention is required to avoid a low-speed condition. As the aircraft was operating at the edge of its climb performance envelope there was insufficient thrust to follow the selected climb profile. Over a period of 50 seconds up to the departure from controlled flight, the airspeed steadily decayed, by 10 kt.

I think the above from the accident report says it all and why VS should be used with absolute caution for climb JETS or LIGHT PISTON AIRCRAFT. Frankly at worst I think you are better climbing with manual trim either through the autopilot trim wheel or the main trim wheel as at least you are aware that you are controlling the aircraft. VS should only be used in descent and in climb with absolute caution and awareness
IAS mode will protect the aircraft. Down side is that the aircraft will hunt the speed again causing a pitching which is not great for the PAX so again MENTALLY manually fly which will at least mentally make you aware that you are controlling the climb rate rather than going to sleep thinking George has it in hand with VS use the trim or autopilot trim )))

Pace

[funfly]

Logged time is as Pilot in Charge not Pilot holding the Stick.
If your aircraft is on autopilot you are still in charge.

[Pace]

Just as another thought especially at high level and if you are lucky enough to have an AOA Gauge that is by far the best. Use the autopilot trim which will allow you to make small adjustments while monitoring the AOA gauge and using that as your guide.
Going to Jets the higher levels are where your concentration is required most and especially in the Citations which are not great climbers in the mid 30s its a matter of coaxing a climb to what you can relevant to weight or levelling , building speed and using that energy to help in a step climb.
But to turn your attention to wind charts at those highly sensitive levels is asking for trouble as the guy in the incident report above found out.

Pace

[westhawk]

Hi Pace

It's understandable that there are differing preferences regarding specific techniques used by pilots when flying airplanes. These differences of opinion have always existed between qualified pilots! I won't say you are wrong in promoting your particular viewpoint on the use of F/D vertical guidance modes any more than I would for your choice of headset or your preferred visual scanning technique during landing. As long as your preferred techniques work effectively for you when you fly, any discussion of technique is strictly academic. Perhaps anyone reading these opinions will benefit from considering the relative merits and risks associated with the techniques being promoted or criticized.

All I'm trying to say is no matter what auto mode is selected, there are ways they can get you in trouble if they aren't monitored properly. If the pilot(s) aren't in the control loop then they'd better be an "active" observer, ready to intervene at any time. Can FLC mode get you in trouble? How about IAS hold or mach hold? I've seen a couple of wakethehellup moments in several of the available F/D modes. So yeah I trust the automation... To exactly the degree I'm able to verify it's performance.

I guess the objection I have to the "VS kills" argument is the inherent implication that somehow, other modes can't or won't wreck you day too. To me the best policy is to understand ALL modes behavior well and to develop and maintain monitoring habit patterns that will detect any deviation from expected performance with a very high degree of reliability.

In matters of personal technique, to each their own I say. In an overly rigid SOP environment, there may be edicts which depart the SOP arena and infringe pretty deeply into the personal technique arena. I'm aware of their their reasoning. But as I'm sure you know Pace, in the smaller corporate and charter sector, the difference between the two is more recognizable and more of the hazard versus benefit policy decisions are left to the pilots. I have no problem with your individual preference. I would just like to share my observation that other auto modes can lead one into traps as well. Consistent and effective scan and correct mentality is the only known effective way to prevent mode mismalglement from ruining your day.

And just to add something specifically related to the OP:

The logging of pilot flight time is a separate issue to the actual level of experience and skills gained. PIC time is the amount of time you were in command of the flight. Command includes but is not limited to the supervision of other crewmembers and the operation of all aircraft systems. All time spent acting as the PIC is logged as PIC time. US FARs also allow the logging of PIC time while the sole manipulator of the controls. (that includes while operating the autopilot)

Productive discussion is always a welcome sight on this site.

regards,

westhawk

[westhawk]

I agree about the AOA indicator. Useful in all regimes of flight.

westhawk

[OhNoCB]

Someone who spends 99% of the time monitoring an autopilot will almost definitely not have the same hand flying skills/currency as someone who never uses one, but as to whether or not the autopilot hours should be logged - it could get really nitty gritty.

I used to fly airplanes some of which had working autopilots, but the things were SO liable to under perform or malfunction that you had to monitor everything just as closely as you would from flying without it and be ready to intervene at any time. This is very different (technically it shouldn't be but being real here) from the autopilot on a modern jet aircraft (as an example, I am sure many lighter aircraft have good automatics too) in which you could engage it after flap retraction and then go to sleep until time to configure for landing more or less, perhaps waking up to reset the MCP at top of descent.

[skyking1]

It takes a fair bit of know-how to properly manage aircraft systems, autopilot included. I wish I had an autopilot; all of my IMC flight has been hand flown, every last bit of it.
No question that you'd log it as PIC, not in my mind. Also no question that it will do a better job for the folks in the back on bigger iron.
My only autopilot misadventure was a bit alarming. I was flying a twin comanche and the servo aileron cable had somehow gotten wound into one of the pulleys and effectively jammed the controls up somewhat. It limited the right aileron to just a few degrees, maybe 5% of normal. I flew a big pattern to avoid any need for right correction and landed, but an engine failure would have been an extra bit of drama I am sure.

[westhawk]

Someone who spends 99% of the time monitoring an autopilot will almost definitely not have the same hand flying skills/currency as someone who never uses one

There's allot of truth in that statement. Of course actual skill levels vary somewhat among pilots based upon variables like previous experience, recency of experience and just plain old aptitude. It's also true that the industry has determined that much of the physical control manipulation is most appropriately handled by the A/P in routine jet flying. Be that as it may, simple logic dictates that pilots must be proficient using ALL levels of automation from raw data hand flying to maximum use of all resources. To accomplish that objective, pilots must have a sufficient level of recent experience in flight using various levels of automation. Skills DO atrophy somewhat when seldom used. A few hours in the sim once or twice a year helps, but is not sufficient. Especially since much of the sim training is in using automation at the highest level!

Anyway there's no one size fits all solution to the problem of automation dependency or manual skills degradation. Each organization has it's own policies and SOPs so individual pilots will just have to do the most they can within those constraints. It IS important that they do all they can.

westhawk

[Pace]

West Hawk

Obviously in RVSM airspace you have to fly on auto and to a certain extent you want to make the ride as smooth as possible so will use the autopilot.
Using the autopilot but monitoring it at all times still frees up brain capacity for other work especially in something like a jet which travels quickly.

Nevertheless on simpler departures we make it a habit of hand flying maybe up to FL280 and then engaging autopilot from there. It depends on the situation weather etc but its good practice to keep those hand flying skills honed.

flying mainly older generation Citations few have had totally reliable autopilots so you will tend to know its odd behaviour and be more aware than maybe a pilot flying a recent jet which is 100% relied on.

the same goes for small pistons you can get a Cirrus with an all singing and dancing array of pilot aids. There have been many who have used that aircraft capability to compensate for their own lack of skills and that is where the danger lies.

older varieties have everything from pure wing levellers to very unreliable behaviour and those require much more pilot intervention and monitoring

Pace

[westhawk]

Pace

So flying with the most appropriate level of automation to meet the current circumstances is usually the best course of action then. Agreed?

The circumstances to consider may be numerous indeed. Among them though are a few things we might want to consider:

1) How much spare workload capacity do we need to "free up" right now versus how much do we need the "work" to maintain manual proficiency?

2) How able are we to perform at a high level right now versus just wanting to reduce the likelihood of ending up feeling a little too "challenged"?

3) What kind of performance can we expect from the automation? Is it more work and/or are there more potential "traps" using a particular level or mode of automation versus other modes including 100% manual?

4) Regulatory, MEL, company policy or fellow crewmember or pax comfort considerations.

Obviously these priorities are ordered according to some combination of policy and judgment, depending upon the type of flight organization. They won't be identical in every operation or circumstance. In a private operation, it's pretty much the airmanship of the pilot(s) which must be relied upon to answer any questions regarding competing priorities. In a highly structured airline environment, much may be determined according to company policy. Similar to automation itself, decision-making authority has multiple levels and modes according to where you work. But the responsibility remains with the PIC when things go wrong. It's good to be King eh?

Similar to your experiences Pace, I have spent a fair amount of time flying some older planes with quirky automation. To tell the complete and unvarnished truth I really enjoyed it that way because you can really see the subtle differences between skillful flying and just going through the motions. It just feels good to do something skillfully. Especially if it doesn't come easily. But alas, professional flying sometimes requires a certain amount of submission to policy. And sometimes the higher level of automation is the best/safest course of action. Still, if someone would pay me a decent living wage to do it, I'd be perfectly happy hand flying a Super Cub on floats below 500'AGL for the rest of my days! That's still some of the most enjoyable and gratifying flying I've ever done. But then, there's some pretty interesting flying to be done in bizjets too. Automation or not, multi-crew or not, it's all flying. And flying is GOOD! I hope you all enjoy yours everyone, no matter what kind of plane and regardless of how you log it.

westhawk