Preventing the loss of pure flying skills in jet transport aircraft.

[Tee Emm]

During an informal discussion in the simulator crew room the subject arose on how to regain lost pure flying skills caused by years of automation dependency. Clearly, such are everyday ATC restrictions and company mandated procedures, it is a lost cause during line flying where full use of all automatics is invariably enforced and any transgressions quickly picked up by the QAR and the pilot carpeted and risks losing his job.

That leaves only the simulator. Again, time and costs limits its use for other than regulatory requirements unless the operator takes the enlightened view that there is a cost benefit to scheduling regular pure flying practice because there is a flight safety spin-off in the long run.

But what pure flying sequences give most handling benefits is open to individual opinion. Recently this contributor received a private request from a current airline pilot to hire a company jet transport simulator at own expense for an hour of personal handling practice in the hope of increasing his own self confidence in his ability to hand fly in IMC without having to fall back on the automatics.

Despite considerable experience on jet transports he was quietly concerned that he had lost the skill and ability to seamlessly switch from full automatic flying to basic pure flying skills should it be needed quickly.


Talking to other pilots over the years, this loss of confidence in one's own ability to get out of trouble by switching back to flying without flight directors and auto-throttles, is a lot more common than people might think. This often stems from initial simulator type rating training on todays jets where automatics are introduced from the first session and no time allotted to get the feel of flying the aircraft.

Horses for courses, but in another era the first thing we did before simulators were the go, was lots of circuits and touch and go landings. There were so many things to think about during circuits. Fast scanning of instruments, awareness of the runway environment in terms of circuit width, speed and altitude control, flap and gear selections and judgement of base and final inside the circuit area.

It could be argued that touch and go landings are unnecessary as they never happen in real life. That misses the whole point of the manoeuvre as a training aid. One FCTM states the primary objective of touch and go landings is approach and landing practice. It is not intended for landing roll and takeoff procedure training.

The object of circuit training in the simulator is to increase pilot skill and therefore his confidence in handling his aircraft in a quickly changing environment (the circuit). Half-an hour of circuits in the simulator has worked wonders for many pilots that I have seen.

Perhaps Pprune readers would like to chance their arm and add to the list of pure flying sequences that, given the opportunity, they would like to practice in order to be at one with their aircraft rather than being at one with the automatic pilot?

[john_tullamarine]

From my observations, apart from the value of tightly flown circuit work, basic IF/stick and rudder skills are honed maximally by exercises such as -

(a) initially: the old climbing and descending timed turns exercise, simultaneously from and to a heading, from and to an airspeed, and from and to an altitude

(b) subsequently: hand-flown, raw data, ILS in 0/0 conditions, progressively improving to a satisfactory landing and roll out. The simulator excels at this by sensible use of freeze and reposition. Not something that one is ever likely to do in anger .. but smartens up the scan rate and smooth handling like magic

(c) and raw data EFATO, progressively reducing to a min weight, min speed schedule at SL aft CG, with a requirement to track the opposite end localiser. Again, freeze and reposition permits maximum repetitive practice. The pilot who gets it all under control with a failure during the rotation flare usually goes off home at the end of the program with quite a (well deserved) swelled head ...

I have used the above three exercises, sprinkled throughout initial jet endorsements with both high and low time pilots .. in the great majority of cases, progress is fairly rapid and pleasing to watch from the back seat. The spin off to the other standard endorsement flying exercises is patently obvious to the back seater.

The automatics don't get a look in for this stuff ...




Clearly, the back seater has to be of a suitable personality to keep extraneous stress levels low in the front seat so that full concentration is on the exercise and no worry about the learning curve screw ups along the way and what the back seater might think of the pilot .. indeed, this back seater had little but high admiration for the hard work put in by the typical endorsement student.


... the end goal justifies the means ...

[RAT 5]

Perhaps PPRuNe readers would like add to the list of pure flying sequences they would like to practice in order to be at one with their aircraft.

When I had the opportunity to write a FFS TR course for B737 I started session 1 with this. Later, when having to teach someone else's TR syllabus with little manual flying included, I also used it for students who were having trouble with manoeuvres like raw data ILS and SE ILS & GA. Those whose scan was weak & slow and feel a bit agricultural.

No FD's.

* 5000' level 210kts.
* Accel 250kts then reduce 210kts and accel 250kts.
* level turns 25degrees BA through 90 degrees then reverse with no pause for 90 degrees.
* continue the turn & increase bank 45 for 180 degrees then reverse for 180 degrees.
* maintain turn & reduce 25BA and reduce speed 210kts for 120degrees then reverse and accel 250kts for 180 degrees.
* Climb 1000' at 1000fpm 25BA 90 degrees.
* level off maintain 25BA for 90 degrees.
* reverse turn 25BA and descend 1000' at 1000fpm for 180 degrees.
* reverse the turn 25BA and climb 1000' at 1000fpm.
* level off, maintain 25BA and reduce 210kts for 180 degrees.
* wings level. maintain HDG.
* radar vectors to a raw data ILS. IMC
* allow descend for +/- 2500 - 3000'.
* Call a GA at 200' with MAA at 3000'.
* Clean up and level off.

I call this aerial ballet. The a/c is always dynamic in hdg/speed/BA/ROC/ROD. Not only does it develop feel it develops and increases scan speed. It also educates the students WHERE to look for the information. If they've come from non-glass cockpit or EFIS the FBS phase on autopilot does not develop a scan. Suddenly, in FFS, they are expected to have a scan in a totally different instrument layout and perhaps many months since their last flying lessons. Their instrument scanning is already only minimum experience and needs developing step by step to help confidence.
I'd spent years on needles & dials. It took me much practice to feel confident with an EFIS scan. I had the feel for a jet and knew power/att settings. I had lots of spare capacity to learn a new cockpit. The cadets do not and IMHO too much is expected of them too early without giving them the necessary tools to do the job.
The 'ballet' is a basic concept that can be adjusted, modified to suit. Follow it with no FD circuit training and importantly include some GA's, even 500' low level circuits. 1 hour at the beginning of FFS will reap rewards. It is also a great refresher for those who are not allowed to do it on a day to day basis.
The airlines I've been involved with are expanding so fast but do not have spare FFS time to allow their 1000's of pilots to have fun. They barely have enough sim time for all the mandatory stuff. It's sad the way some companies restrict and discourage the maintenance of basic skills on the line. If they do that it is perhaps indicative of their overall attitude to piloting skills. There is the root cause of the problem. In B732 I was not taught, extensively, in the sim how to fly manually. I was taught the basics, learnt the power/ATT numbers, developed an OK scan and then, importantly, practiced and improved on the line. It was demonstrated by captains and they encouraged to follow suit. The pilot based management demanded excellence in piloting skills and captain management.


Hey JT. I was writing mine as you were posting yours. Seems we come from the same school.

[Jwscud]

It is interesting that having done type ratings in the airline and corporate environment that the only establishment that did the sort of exercises suggested above was CAE on the Learjet. Sim 1 was bashing raw data circuits, and EFATOs (and the dreaded TR unsafe after V1) were practiced roughly as outlined above.

The airline training I have experienced by contrast is very much set pattern, box ticked.

My new airline have a policy allowing pilots to use the sims whenever they are not in use for self-directed practice, and as somebody moving on to long haul, I hope to try to get in once every month or so to bash through a bit of raw data circuits, approaches and failures.

[Chesty Morgan]

A dogfight.

[wiggy]

jw

My new airline have a policy allowing pilots to use the sims whenever they are not in use for self-directed practice, and as somebody moving on to long haul, I hope to try to get in once every month or so to bash through a bit of raw data circuits, approaches and failures.

Not sure who you are with but where I work they also have that scheme. However most guys these days are FTL'd out/to knackered and/or to busy to drag themselves out of bed/away from family life on a regular basis to do sims in their spare time . There also needs to be a qualified panel operator to run the box, so at our place it's not easy to organise on a regular and frequent basis.

As aside, just on the off chance it's relevant to your plans, I'll mention that there can be a problem ( again at least where I work) for pilots trying to get extra practise by volunteering as in stand-in P1/P2 on another pilots recurrent detail (e.g because the originally rostered pilot went sick). Some of those volunteers have suddenly found themselves in "jeopardy" because, volunteer or not, they've been involved in a check that has not gone as planned :oh:....

I'm certainly not disagreeing in principle with the sort of thing you're suggesting but with workload these days it should be done on the company's time, and with some clear ROE (pull the wings off - yes/no? full SOPs - yes/no? jeopardy- yes/no?......)

[Tourist]

This is going to sound like a stupid idea, and yes there would be issues.....

However. Here goes.

In today's computer driven aircraft, it would be possible to "separate" the two sides of the cockpit from each other.

One side flies the aircraft for real.

The other side switches to a simulation/computer game mode.

During long sectors, pilots take turns on the computer game mode flying through random scenarios.

Yes there is no simulation of aircraft movement, but this is a relatively minor loss in airline flying.

Nobody loses their own time to practice.
Long Sectors get less boring.
Pilots get more hands on and experience of the bad stuff which thankfully is less and less common in the real world.


You would have to have a very robust system to get everybody playing together again.
Only certain low workload situations would allow it.
It would be difficult to stop the actual real world pilot from becoming distracted by the more interesting game sitting next to him.

[misd-agin]

Our company allows manually flying except for CAT II/CAT III and auto land approaches. Few take the opportunity to turn it off, especially the autothrottle's.

[seen_the_box]

Clearly, such are everyday ATC restrictions and company mandated procedures, it is a lost cause during line flying where full use of all automatics is invariably enforced and any transgressions quickly picked up by the QAR and the pilot carpeted and risks losing his job.

I simply don't recognise this at all from my own experience (although I have no doubt that is the case in some airlines/ cultures).

Our part A explicitly states that crew should take the opportunity to maintain their manual flying skills during normal line operations. I personally fly manually whenever appropriate (and for me "appropriate" is not just CAVOK calm at a quiet airfield!), and encourage my FOs to do the same.

If for some reason it all goes wrong, we can always go around, and nobody in the FDM team will bat an eyelid.

[RAT 5]

Lucky man.

[Capt Pit Bull]

"Preventing the loss of pure flying skills"

That which has never been possessed can't be lost.

[RAT 5]

That which has never been possessed can't be lost.

Are you advocating that it is not necessary for airline pilots to have such skills? And therefore they should not be part of the training program in the transition from spam-cans to jet powered aluminium tubes? Surely any pilot in whom others trust should have pure flying skills to a minimum degree. That does not mean rock & roll inverted flight etc., but pure flying skills related to their application.
Tongue in cheek, if you wish.

[galaxy flyer]

Funny, RAT 5, I took it to mean that many (most?) of today's pilots just never acquired the manual skills that were standard 30 Yeats ago. One of those skills isn't just manual, hands on; but the ability to mentally draw a picture of where the plane is in space and where it needs to go, how to get it there.

Not demeaning JT's and your excercises, but the ND has taken away the skill of orientation.

[RAT 5]

but the ND has taken away the skill of orientation.

Interesting? I was brought up with needles & dials and a mathematical & scientific education. I played most sports. Perhaps all that gave me the ability to draw a picture in my mind of what the needles & dials were telling me. Equally I could navigate around London via the sun; knowing my start point, destination and having looked at a map before I left. I'd get myself into a small circle close to destination and ask questions.
Flying into Spain & some Greek islands B732 with nothing except a DME/NDB and a challenge not to spool up before 4nm kept the SA & orientation skills sharp. I could not believe it when I flew with a map & fix pages & distance to go etc. I found the amount of data made the job of mental SA so much easier; in 4 dimensions.
What I found in the sim and later on the line, sadly, is how little the F/O's looked at the ND. They were children of the magenta line with in LANV & VNAV. No mental x-check outside the PFD. It had to be a training thing first and a modern cultural thing afterwards. Laziness was allowed to develop uncorrected.
So I'm curious by your comment. It's not the ND that is at fault it is the way it is trained, or not. Raw data ILS being a classic case in point. I ask students, who came from a basic spam-can instrument panel, why they did not look at THE MAP? They had no answer even though they had a TomTom. It had not been stressed in introduction to the a/c. SOP's, checklists, QRH's and systems were the priority.
TRAINING is the root cause of so many modern faults.

[Judd]

Raw data ILS being a classic case in point. I ask students, who came from a basic spam-can instrument panel, why they did not look at THE MAP? They had no answer

Interesting observation RAT 5. The MAP mode has always meant little to me personally when flying an ILS raw data or otherwise. I already know exactly where I am on the approach without being distracted by seeing lots of extra information on the MAP that I simply don't need in order to fly an ILS within tolerances.

I have always liked a dirty big HSI presentation in front of me when flying any ILS in any aircraft so I can pick the slightest movement of the CDI and correct for the trend. On the other hand, the miniature localiser needle moving laterally in the tiny box under the PFD in the MAP mode, never grabs my attention - but then I am sure its a personal preference. But the lovely long CDI on the HSI mode makes me feel at home.

It is rather like those captains (checkies or normal garden variety) who get quite irritated if their co-pilot flies an instrument approach with the elbow rests up (not being used) and insist their second in command have the elbow rests down for more accurate flying. It is personal preference.

[Pakehaboy]

Tee eem,
Interesting thread indeed,some great observations and points being made.I have flown jet A/C for many years,the only way I've ever got close to getting those skills back was to buy an 85hp Taylorcraft,with the basic six pack,and spend days hand flying,short Cross country's and practicing approaches at various airports.

Flying for a major airline ,because of the obvious costs,will never allow you to regain those lost skills,impossible.The amount of information and "must-do" maneuvers associated with current training and check rides are geared to an automated system,not basic skills,and you can only do do much in a 4 hr session,and debrief every 6/9/12 month cycle.

We have introduced a "stall series" training session, prompted by the AirFrance accident.Not sure what to say about that,other than if you haven't figured out stall recognition and recovery by this stage,wtf are you flying this type of equipment for.We seem to gear our Sim sessions around current issues or problems.With the limited amount of time allowed basic flying skills get pushed to the wayside.More and frequent sim sessions cannot hurt,then again putting an 85 hp Taylorcraft through its paces never hurt either

[RAT 5]

Hi Judd: I mis-wrote. I meant to say the ND. The reason is observing the Track Line. Personally I fly raw data with APP Mode on ND. Dirty great big CDI with a track-line for extra measure. You see the LOC deviation displaced and the track-line tells you exactly how much to correct. Also the track-line tells you, in advance, IF the LOC is going to deviate. It's marvellous.
I see the students reacting to the LOC deviation on PFD other than being proactive using the track-line on ND. That is my observation. Even if they use MAP for an ILS the track-line is still their to give vital information. You just need to look at it. Back to training. If they haven't been told what/how to do then they do not it.

[vapilot2004]

That leaves only the simulator. Again, time and costs limits its use for other than regulatory requirements unless the operator takes the enlightened view that there is a cost benefit to scheduling regular pure flying practice because there is a flight safety spin-off in the long run.

My theory of how we got here:

Just a few decades ago, automatics were unreliable enough that manual flying ability was something one needed to keep current on for good reason - 1 in 50, you could be handed an aircraft that needed to be 'handled' with no help from George, with his cousin McDoo barely able to keep an accurate track beyond 300nm without some learned, situationally aware input from time to time.

Now, in the world of synthesized digital 'perfection', there is the idea that we can train for a calculated percentage of possibilities by some MBA types to remain within the 'margin'.

The solution lies with re-establishing safety culture and the way there is through regulation and reward as you suggest, TM.

Regulation comes from the industry and government working in a (for a change) truly functional way, and reward coming from the industry in conjunction with an educated marketplace, the last of which might need some sort of fertilizer of a more refined nature than the blend currently being applied to the masses.

[RAT 5]

That leaves only the simulator. Again, time and costs limits its use for other than regulatory requirements unless the operator takes the enlightened view that there is a cost benefit to scheduling regular pure flying practice because there is a flight safety spin-off in the long run.

Are you suggesting 6 monthly base training. Unnecessary & impractical. From diverse experience of multiple employers, and reading comments on Prune during the numerous discussions about this problem, there is no doubt a huge variety in operators' philosophies. Until 10 years ago all my operators, including B732733/737/757/767 either encouraged manual flight = approaches, or did not discourage it and left it to crews' own choice. More recently the opposite was true, aggressively. It was claimed to be a safety consideration. The observation was that the better the weather the more GA's were made due 'unstable at landing gate'. What a surprise as on line practice was not encouraged.
We hear there are airlines who encourage basic piloting skills and allow their use daily on line. Is their safety record any worse than the straight-jacket operators? I don't think so. It has become so bad that some operators, while allowing visual approaches, insist on an LNAV/VNAV construction and prefer use of automatics to guide the a/c to a medium finals. OMG! These airlines should not be allowed to advertise for 'pilots wanted'; rather wealthy trained monkeys. It is contrary to correct advertising practices and not in the interest of pilot welfare. It is an abuse to our profession.

[Karunch]

50 + hours/ year of private SE flying. Tailwheel, SP Ifr, crosswinds, night approaches to black hole aerodromes, short runways & circling approaches combined give confidence in any manual handling required in an airline environment. Now if I could only get my employer to directly sponsor it.

[wiggy]

Karunch

Years back when our rosters were "lighter" and aviation/cost of living in general in the SE UK wasnt quite so expensive as it is now a lot of my more senior colleagues did exactly what you describe (well it was that or sail the yacht :ooh:).... Nowadays it's quite rare to come across anyone who does much if any SE flying ( aside from a few part timers).

As you say, if such flying is valuable then it needs the employers and regulators to buy into it.... what chance that!

[Judd]

Are you suggesting 6 monthly base training.


Base training? Do you mean in the real aeroplane? Where was that suggested in the discussion? The suggestions are all about additional emphasis on non-automatics practical handling practice during simulator training

[RAT 5]

crosswinds = LBA, BHX, AMS (often) etc.
night approaches to black hole aerodromes,= Corfu (Southerly) Thessaloniki, Kos, etc.
short runways & circling approaches= Calvi, Corfu, Samos, Kos (southerly), CIA, etc.

combined give confidence in any manual handling required in an airline environment.
Now if I could only get my employer to directly sponsor it.

In my past life it was called line flying everyday.

[cawky]

I went skiing at Innsbruck in March, is it a hard airport to land at? my arse was twitching like a rabbits nose in the terminal building too.

[Centaurus]

The suggestions are all about additional emphasis on non-automatics practical handling practice during simulator training

During recurrent simulator training in the 737 Classic, the initial task was to give crews practice at 30 knot crosswind component landings in fine weather. Unlimited visibility and steady non-gusting crosswind component. In other word basic crosswind handling skills. The objective was to touch down with zero drift. In almost every case pilots were touching down with 10-12 degrees of drift still applied because of slow application of rudder to align the aircraft with the centre-line. It took about five approach and landings for each pilot (captains and copilots) to get it right and avoid landing sideways each time. This was on a dry runway.

For some, they were happy to landing with excessive drift still applied claiming the 737 was up to it. The true answer was they did not have the basic handling ability possibly because of lack of opportunity to get crosswind landings. Either the captain always did the crosswind landing because he didn't trust his F/O to land it safely without squealing of tortured tyres. Or the co-pilot was restricted by company regulations to a maximum crosswind of 15 knots or something like that.

This surely is where proper simulator training comes into its own especially as crosswind landings take real skill to attain perfection.

[Check Airman]

Part of the problem is the way avionics are made. Boeing and Airbus doesn't have an HSI mode which supports FMS navigation, so once you're given direct to some fix, you've got to have the FD on. In my old airplane, the FMS could drive the CDI, and it was not unusual to hand fly an RNAV SID/STAR or approach. The only time you really get to practice hand flying without the FD nowadays, is while you're getting vectored, or on an approach. At least once a week, I try and turn off the FD/AT and do the approach raw data. Day/night/VMC/IMC shouldn't matter.

[RAT 5]

At least once a week, I try and turn off the FD/AT and do the approach raw data. Day/night/VMC/IMC shouldn't matter.

Lucky man. There are TM airlines where this is forbidden; and yes, it does say in their Ops Manual that manual flying is allowed in suitable circumstances. Say one thing do another.

[Check Airman]

Lucky man. There are TM airlines where this is forbidden; and yes, it does say in their Ops Manual that manual flying is allowed in suitable circumstances. Say one thing do another.

Just from reading pprune, it seems that your manuals say when manual flying is allowed, and ours will say when the AP is required. On the surface, it doesn't seem like a big deal, but to me, it suggests a fundamentally different philosophy.

[Denti]

Boeing and Airbus doesn't have an HSI mode which supports FMS navigation

It depends i guess, on the 737 Classic we had an HSI mode that supported FMS navigation, and even on the 737NG with performance navigation scales it is absolutely no problem to fly RNAV without the use of a flight director. On the bus it is not that easy, but the A320 avionics are a good generation behind the current NG ones.

[Fursty Ferret]

Even without an FMS-slaved HSI you can fly direct to a waypoint by flying the track shown on the ND, which is how I do it if I want to fly raw data. Only had one embarrassing comment from ATC on the quality of my navigation... ;-)

[PEI_3721]

The OP asks about 'pure' flying skills; I wonder if there is any such thing - manual flight without awareness, decision making, etc.
Also the fallacy that the use of automation 'causes' loss of skill, and that then 'causes' accidents. There is little evidence of either. Some accident reports cite loss of skill / loss of control, yet often overlook that the pilots had not understood the situation or had not been trained for such events.

Perhaps the discussion might consider:-
"Hand-eye skills (instrument scanning and manual control), if initially well learned, are reasonably well retained after prolonged use of automation.
Cognitive skills, such as navigation and failure recognition and diagnosis, are prone to forgetting and may depdend on the extent to which pilots follow along when automation is used to fly the aircraft." http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/56/8/1506.full.pdf

How can we sharpen- retain cognitive skills?

[RAT 5]

The thing that gets me in some airlines is their confusing attitude. Cadet selection process is raw data flying, and mini IR test. Base training is no FD flying to a pure visual with timing guidance to roll out on finals at 3nm. These are the skills required to join the lofty ranks of line pilots; well line training anyway. On the line these skills and attributes are forbidden. Autopilot, FD, auto throttle, LNAV/VNAV circuits, SOP's when to scratch your nose, etc. One wonders why use a selection process for a pilot and then create a trained monkey?
And then their Op's manual mentioned they encourage pilots to practice their skills when appropriate. Their XAA is having wooled pulled over their rose tinted glasses.

[Denti]

Seems a weird way to go about business, RAT5. Happily i never encountered that, the airlines i have flown in encouraged and still do encourage us to fly manually on the line. Raw data, or at least Flight Director off flight without autopilot and autothrust is a normal thing to do.

Now, it is very easy to get lazy and leave all that nice stuff in, and many do that. But those that want to fly the damn thing without all the trickery can certainly do so. On the 737 i flew at least 50% of all my approaches "raw data", usually out of something like FL200, something that was required since my first linetraining flight. On the bus i am so far kinda lazy and only fly a third of my approaches raw data, but i'm working on that.

Sometimes it seems on here that this "maximum use of automatics at all times" is an attitude mostly found in the anglo-saxon influenced world (probably not the US though) and asia. But i might be wrong there. Central Europe seems to be wired a bit differently.

[pax britanica]

Clearly i sit further back than you guys but if I might make an observation.

Modern automation has no doubt made flying 'easier' and less prone to individual pilot skill levels. Obverlla thats probably a good thing and has no doubt, through things like alpha protection, CATIII autoland prevented a significant number of accidents.
All this can easily be deduced by looking at overall accident statistics and how they have drastically reduced. Add savings on pilot training and recurrency training and theyare attractive prospects for corporate managements.

However we seem in the last year of two to have got to a point where the automatics safety factor is virtually taken for granted-it is not the improvement factor any more it is the new norm. As a consequence little publicity internally or externally appears to be given to situations where autoflight or simialr 'saves the day.

On the contrary side however among the much reducded number of accidents is a much increased number of accidents rseulting from situations that years ago just would never have happened, like stalling the plane which lets face it is pilotign 101.. The skills and airmanship with junior pilots learning on the job doing things like running round the Bovingdon hold for LHR in bad weather after an overnight from USA in a Conway engined 707 ,for instance meant that new FOs really did learn the hard way as part of the job because their was no alternative , no magenta line and this stuff happened on a daily basis

Move along to 2016 and no one has the opportunity to learn the 'hard way' because no one operates heavy underpowered jets with raw data on round guages . So when something unusual crops up those once vital skills in daily use are no longer there and we get events like the Colgan crash in Buffalo, Asiana at SFO and AF 447 .

The problem the pilot community have is balancing the two scenarios , do automatics save more lives than they cost as a result of degraded skills- and therefore save more money. You all know which choice your airline will make if the answer is yes. So how do you make a case for more manual flying in order to gain and keep current skills that may never be used or may one dark dirty night save a couple of hundred lives and a couple of hundred million dollars.

It would seem to me that someone (BALPA?IFALPA) needs to put together a proper analysis of recent accidents and make the case that in todays world the majority of accidents are caused no so much by pilot error as inadequate piloting and if that can clearly be shown then airlines and regulators do face a compulsion to do something since lawyers, media and insurers do not look kindly on people who overlook evident risks.

Anyway excuse me butting in, I have every sympathy with you as it is not just in the pilot world where this sort of thing happens, the number of times experience and judgement have been overturned by a spreadsheet or power point is beyond count in my (telecommunications) world but when something goes wrong in the middle of the night and they have to dig out aged Fred the engineer or young Jack the nerdy one who understands it all, these guys do have the luxury or time and safe environments to figure out the fix and maybe experiment a bit-you guys don't and people die as a result

[RAT 5]

Pax B: in many way you are correct. It is a cost/risk analysis situation. I am alway amazed at the reaction of authorities, & the public, to life taking events. A train smash, an a/c smash, a .....??????? Let us not let it happen again. Design it out. Enforce safety procedures; etc. etc. Then we hear, quietly, that there are so many XYZ deaths per year from problems in hospitals; there are so many deaths on the roads; there are so many deaths from foods; were are so many deaths from............
Reaction? not a lot because the publicity and shock value from the media is not there. 5 a/c crashes per year in one EU country is less than unnecessary hospital deaths and/or car deaths. Is there a cry of outrage for better driving standards or medical standards?
I'm with the 'better piloting skills' brigade because I was one. The managers/accountants/shareholder & the public? I wonder? Cynical, pessimistic, realistic. I'll let you decide.
Meanwhile the manufacturers are trying to design out the errors with more back-ups and fail-safe systems. Better pilots are not required because the a/c can not go wrong....go wrong....go wrong.....Ooops!

[pax britanica]

RAT 5

i agree with your comments - the point Iwas trying to make , as you allude to , is what happens when the automatics go wrong or mislead the crew , perhaps compounded by fatigue etc.

the challenge is to show that while overall automatics have brought great benefits in safety terms , an unintended consequence has put resulting poor basic flying skills right at the top of accident causes and as such it is negligent on the part of corporations to ignore it

[Judd]

Indelible in my mind is reading the accident report CVR where a Boeing 737 took off at night somewhere in the Middle East and the captain asked his first officer to engage the autopilot. I think the F/O replied along the lines "God Willing - autopilot engaged" But he had not engaged the autopilot because the captain still had pressure on the control wheel preventing the AP from engaging. All the F/O was apparently doing was reading back the captain's command to engage the AP.

Eventually the 737 wandered around the night sky in ever increasing angles of bank until it was in a seriously unusual attitude because no one was flying it. The absolutely horrifying part then started as the aircraft went into a steep spiral with the captain shouting desperately "Engage the Auto-pilot - engage the autopilot! Then oblivion...

That particular event and there are many others similar, if one cares to trawl through ICAO accident reports involving loss of control in IMC and that includes more recently, straight forward low altitude go arounds in IMC, demonstrates a fundamental flaw in recurrent simulator training starting from the first type rating.

That flaw is so easily fixed by company initiative in designing the simulator training syllabus to accent manual flying skills instead of button pressing ad nauseum. If the crew lack the ability to seamlessly switch from autopilot controlled flight to manually controlled flight without drama, then again this reflects adversely on their training in the simulator. I am sure every airline management work on the theory that accidents only happen to other operators so no need to worry about simulator training beyond regulatory box ticking.

As one Boeing Seattle 787 test pilot told a Boeing 787 simulator instructor "We designed the 787 around the basis it will be flown by incompetent pilots." What an indictment on the quality of some airline crews flying jet transports.

[wiggy]

That flaw is so easily fixed by company initiative in designing the simulator training syllabus to accent manual flying skills instead of button pressing ad nauseum.

I wouldn't disagree but (as I think someone mentioned earlier) a lot of that button pressing is required by the regulator, and usually need to be done on a recurrent basis....autolands, emergency descent,, Hyd fail X, hyd fail Y, hyd fail X&Y...etc etc and some of it twice ( for both seats)...and then there's the "look at" that tricky new destination that might come on line...and the revision to some procedure Boeing/Airbus are coming up with..

I don't know how the trainers that write our "scripts" manage to squeeze everything into the sessions, but they do.

TBH unless some of the recurrent content goes or is reduced in frequency you're going to need more expensive sim time to allow for a meaningful amount of handling practise ( such scannexs, etc) every 6 months...

What are the chances of that?

[stilton]

'As one Boeing Seattle 787 test pilot told a Boeing 787 simulator instructor "We designed the 787 around the basis it will be flown by incompetent pilots." What an indictment on the quality of some airline crews flying jet transports. '



Sounds like complete nonsense to me, another made up story.



In fact Boeing has taken the opposite tack from AB who have tried
desperately to 'Pilot Proof' their aircraft by taking them out of the loop
as much as possible.



Boeing recognizes that Pilots should always have the final say as far as
control of the aircraft is concerned and you can't do that with hard limits.

[seen_the_box]

Sounds like complete nonsense to me, another made up story.


Ironic, considering what you go on to write about Airbus and its design philosophy. I've never felt 'out of the loop' in 5000+ hours flying the 'bus.

You always have final say on Airbus FBW aircraft. The protections are merely there to ensure that in normal ops you will remain inside the normal envelope: they protect against poor piloting skills, of course, but not at the expense of removing the pilots from the loop. Difficulties arise when people don't understand the systems, but that is hardly an issue unique to Airbus aircraft.

[RAT 5]

TBH unless some of the recurrent content goes or is reduced in frequency you're going to need more expensive sim time to allow for a meaningful amount of handling practise ( such scannexs, etc) every 6 months...
What are the chances of that?

To answer your last question "not a lot."
To address the former comment: in the enlightened airlines that expensive sim time is not needed because they do it on the line every day.

[Uplinker]

You're all probably bored of me saying this, but an easy system to encourage manual flying would be where we have to perform and record a certain number of manually flown, raw data manual thrust approaches every six months, as part of normal line flying.

We used to have to do this for Autolands, and we kept a personal record of them which was checked at every SIM.

A similar thing should be brought in for manually flown raw data approaches. Obviously they would only be expected to be performed in good weather, but it might help drag us out of our collective "laziness" (and I hold my hand up here too.)

[Check Airman]

the A320 avionics are a good generation behind the current NG ones.

Not to start an A vs B debate, but why do you say that? I've been up front in the NG, and I don't see anything too cutting edge.

[RAT 5]

Uplinker: this would only be necessary for those airlines that discourage proper pilot orientated visual approaches. Flying a raw data ILS in severe clear should be a given. In an earlier life it was most common to have the airfield in sight passing FL100 and, no matter which runway was in use, to fly manually to an efficient finals and if you spooled up before 1500' it was beer time. That was before all the new bells & whistles avionics. i.e. pilot judgement.
Now ATC requirements often prevent short cuts, and local noise enforcers do not allow you onto the GP below platform height, rarely not less than 2000'. No matter, it is a manual CDA exercise and needs constant adjustment to achieve it. There are still places where you can appear overhead at 5000' and make a CDA to either runway direction. Great fun, until the damp blanket brigade decreed that finals must be established not less than 4nm or OM, and a wpt must be inserted in the magic box to ensure compliance. OMG.
If all that was done via automatics, and only the final 4nm was manual flight on a good day, where's the skill developing benefit? It needs to be the whole profile from 20nm out to a CDA. That should be basic line flying.
It's all an attitude thing. Its defence is always safety and economics. It avoids unstable approaches and reduces GA's. So there you have it. But let's publish the performances of those airlines who encourage manual flight and those who don't and see if there is any truth in that perception.

[vapilot2004]

Not to start an A vs B debate, but why do you say that? I've been up front in the NG, and I don't see anything too cutting edge.

It's less about what you see and more about what's behind what you're seeing CA. Higher power consumption and numerous discrete devices using point to point architecture were the norm for 1980's designs (A320 and subsequent variants) compared to the 1990's designed boxes of the NG, which incorporate more integrated digital electronics, using the latest chip technologies, programming, and streamlined architecture.

While the A320 is a more evolutionarily advanced aircraft, mostly due to the ingenious FBW system, the 737NG's electronics are a generation ahead. It's a bit ironic, yes?

[vapilot2004]

Cadet selection process is raw data flying, and mini IR test. Base training is no FD flying to a pure visual with timing guidance to roll out on finals at 3nm. These are the skills required to join the lofty ranks of line pilots; well line training anyway.

They are looking for the best of the best.

On the line these skills and attributes are forbidden.

Once found, the 'smart' ones in risk/cost/benefit work together in handing down the rules, with the (I would hope) begrudging agreement of those in training/ops. That's the internal source of disconnect and an area of needed reform. The question remains, how can we foster this change?

"Forbidden" - my bold, unless a day comes when we are in dire need of manual flying skills, then by all means, save the day, Roger. But if you bugger it up, and manage live to tell about it, you might find yourself on the wrong side of an inquiry.

The thing that gets me in some airlines is their confusing attitude.

You are not alone RAT 5.

[Judd]

Sounds like complete nonsense to me, another made up story.



I would not have placed that remark on pprune just for nonsense sake. Those words came from a highly experienced and respected (now retired) Boeing 787 simulator instructor with whom I have corresponded for over 15 years on technical matters, in a personal email to me and while he was undergoing his initial 787 type rating at Boeing prior to his conducting type rating training on type. Take it or leave it...

[vapilot2004]

Sounds like complete nonsense to me, another made up story.


It is not all that surprising to me, STB.

0 to ATPL being the norm outside of the US and becoming more common. Airbus was highly astute in recognizing the early majority of their customers seeking airline fleet modernity would be employing those who do not come from a pool of clasically trained pilots and of which English may not be their native language. Their ingenious FBW system was to mitigate much of the risk in that endeavour and for the most part has done a fairly good job, considering.

[wiggy]

an easy system to encourage manual flying would be where we have to perform and record a certain number of manually flown, raw data manual thrust approaches every six months, as part of normal line flying.


Not a bad idea, though it sounds a bit like the good old military days of "chasing the line"...and the "pencil whipping" that just might have gone on...:oh:

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment what would be an acceptable level of, say, hand flown approaches (define? e.g. autopilot out below 3k??)) per six months? I know at times some F/O's on Longhaul Fleets struggle to get a landing/approach of any sort a month, due to the heavy crewing they are rostered to do.

[PEI_3721]

@ pax b, l would agree with most of #34, except the 'vital skills in daily use' for Colgan, Asiana, AF do not relate directly to 'pure' flying skills. The dominant skill shortfall was in awareness, probably with contributions from training; stall vs unwarranted tail-stall training, knowledge of a system gotcha, reversion to a recently trained procedure.

A theme of the automation/flying debate is confidence in flying ability. Crews need to acquire and maintain confidence for a wide range of operational scenarios, but it important not to transpose passenger comfort or other operational niceties with the requirement for a safe outcome.

e.g. Whilst it is necessary for crew to practice landings in limiting crosswinds (noting the limits of simulation), it is equally important to direct this experience away from overconfidence. A critical skill is knowing when not to attempt a landing in a limiting crosswind, and what affects the 'limit'.

An alternative incident/accident analysis is required, but I would not turn to IFALPA etc for this. They or similar groups already consider the outcome and recommendations in reports more often with little questioning, resulting in general categorisations, boxes for action.
It would be more beneficial and provide a quicker response, for all operators, all individuals, to consider the reported situation seeking what can be learnt; what they can learn.
It is likely that there will be an wide range of views, probably identifying the many contributors in an accident situation. The objective is not to determine cause, blame etc, but to ask what can be learnt irrespective of the outcome. What applies to 'me', my operation, etc bearing in mind that the outcome might already be known.

[Tourist]

A similar thing should be brought in for manually flown raw data approaches. Obviously they would only be expected to be performed in good weather..

The fact that this is considered "obvious" is somehow terrifying, as if the idea that the pilot could hand fly at the limits was in some way dangerous and something to be avoided.

If a pilot cannot routinely fly by hand at the aircraft limits safely, then they are not really a safe pilot.

Automatics never fail on the CAVOK days....

[pax britanica]

PEI ( been to lovely little Charlotte town -a good few years ago.

I would not argue with your clearer classification of the failings in the incidents I referred to . You seem to generally agree with my point that in order for something to happen there needs to be pressure on the managements to take active steps to mitigate what has become a significant cause of incidents even if overall the number of serious incidents have decreased.

The beanies can for a time wave the stats at you and say -our way is safer BUT and it is a big BUt it has become pretty clear that when things get difficult or unusual or unfamiliar 'their way is not safer it is in fact dangerous.
and sooner or later the lawyers are going to make compensation cases (which only refer to one incident at a time ) and say airline xx didnt train their crews properly for abnormal flight conditions and no amount of arguing about what happens to the other 99.999% of flights being safer is going to help then. So I think airline managers need that situation pushed upon them quite forcefully

[PEI_3721]

@ pax b, yes l agree. However, operators in satisfying the beanies and lawyers, may only meet the minimum regulatory requirements, where often the reasoning behind the regulatory change is flawed, dated, and may not address the important issues.
Furthermore, each operator / individual can implement the training according to their understanding of the problem (cf range of suggestions in this thread), and then who checks that the output achieves the improvement intended.

I do not have an issue with those who wish for more hand flying, that's good for aviation. But individually, operators, and regulators must not fool themselves that this alone will solve the significant problems which can result in LoC.
How does accumulating manually flown approaches contribute to the avoidance of similar situations to those encountered in recent accidents; crews need to improve understanding and identification of weather threats, aircraft systems abnormalities, and 'off' normal operation (limits of SOPs).

[Capt Pit Bull]

"That which has never been possessed can't be lost."

Are you advocating that it is not necessary for airline pilots to have such skills? And therefore they should not be part of the training program in the transition from spam-cans to jet powered aluminium tubes? Surely any pilot in whom others trust should have pure flying skills to a minimum degree. That does not mean rock & roll inverted flight etc., but pure flying skills related to their application.
Tongue in cheek, if you wish.

Hi Rat.

The comment was not a position on the desirability of such skills (which ought to be self evident, but until some bean counter gets indicted for corporate manslaughter.....).

These days I spend most of my time doing MCC and JOC courses; bridging the gap between licence issue and first type rating. Although I ought to be used to it by now I continue to be dismayed by how few of the students can actually fly. Inability to set an attitude. Inability to trim. Non existent scan, especially of heading and speed. Inability to figure out which hand controls what for various phases of flight. Honestly I have NO IDEA how 70% of these people have passed an IR.

I don't blame the students. As an industry (and with the regulators also guilty by omission of action) we have completely messed up the flying training process.

pb

[vapilot2004]

I continue to be dismayed by how few of the students can actually fly. Inability to set an attitude. Inability to trim. Non existent scan, especially of heading and speed. Inability to figure out which hand controls what for various phases of flight. Honestly I have NO IDEA how 70% of these people have passed an IR.


I believe 0 to ATPL is one of the culprits here (alongside the obvious - over-reliance on automatics).

I don't blame the students. As an industry (and with the regulators also guilty by omission of action) we have completely messed up the flying training process.

Enlightened views Cap.

The 'leaders', not the majority, signed off on the programs/systems the 'risk averse' and bottom line aligned were selling. This is the root core of the current disconnect towards safety culture.

[RAT 5]

What is interesting, in this debate, is that critisicm of lack of real basic flying skills has now migrated down the food chain to the embryonic stages. That is scary and the solution rests firmly on the XAA's and flight school inspectors. Who does the final CPL flight test? Are they locally appointed/approved TRE's or employed XAA examiners? Is there any incentive for flight schools to have high pass rates? Is there an assumption that the CPL student on an airline orientated course will then fall into the talons of the in-house airline training dept. and be beaten into shape.
I wonder, having failed 1 element of my initial IR, if standards are high enough in the early stages. I wonder too at the basic selection process. True, anyone with cash can buy a CPL, but aptitude has to be assessed along the way. I know schools are businesses first & foremost. A difficult conundrum.

From experience I found that the small airlines operating from a few bases, who conducted their training & recurrency at home base, who did not employ self-funded cadets but experienced pilots were more active in encouraging piloting skills to be maintained on the line; certainly in all the various charter companies I flew for. This attitude is also alive and confirmed by friends at some of the EU and Canadian national carriers, even up to B747 size.
What I did find is that the rapidly expanding airlines, who have bases all over the place, have pilots from a rainbow of back-grounds and who do employ a large number of self-funded cadets, have quite the opposite attitude. Very rigid use of automatics and SOP's.
It was felt this was the only way to 'keep a handle' on the safe expansion over the horizon. It might seem that the rapid growth of the cheap ticket market so loved by the ever travelling nouveau pax has been complicit, in some areas, with the dilution of piloting skills.
Now that does need the wisdom of Solomon to solve and reverse.

[Uplinker]

Uplinker: this would only be necessary for those airlines that discourage proper pilot orientated visual approaches. Flying a raw data ILS in severe clear should be a given. In an earlier life it was most common to have the airfield in sight passing FL100 and, no matter which runway was in use, to fly manually to an efficient finals and if you spooled up before 1500' it was beer time. That was before all the new bells & whistles avionics. i.e. pilot judgement.

Yup, I agree: I used to all that stuff in Sheds (Shorts 360's), Dash 8's, and 146's, and very good fun it was too !

@wiggy, Well that is for the XAA's to say, not me. We used to have to perform and record 3 practice autolands every 6 months, of which 2 could be flown in the SIM, so I would have thought that was enough opportunity in 6 months for even the long-haul only pilots?

@Tourist; I am trying to come up with workable ideas to shift the thinking and complacency in our industry. Yes, we should all be able to fly at our limits, and indeed some of us can - I used to really enjoy all the turbulent crosswind landing practice I got at EGBB and EGNM. However, the level of such skills is dropping in our industry, and my suggestion might be a way to change the thinking and mind set - in admittedly a small way - of airlines and pilots. Some days I am too tired or, let's be honest, sometimes too lazy to hand fly. If we have had a difficult time on the ground; fire fighting delays from the GHAs, security, the wheelchair agents and slots etc., then I am probably feeling frazzled and not in the mood - I just want to get round the track and then get some rest. Having said that, I am forcing myself to do raw data approaches whenever I can - I did one this morning which wasn't too shoddy, although it was a bit high and fast! And the reason for specifying good or reasonable weather for practice is that unless some sensible ground rules are set out, airlines are not likely to embrace such a proposal - which potentially might lead to increased go-arounds - until we all get used to the idea.

Many of us used to come out of flying school and start on small turbo props or piston engined aircraft, on which we "learned the ropes" doing night freight with crusty and difficult Captains. Then we progressed onto larger turbo props and finally jets. So we have the experience and skills - as long as we can keep them sharp. But folk now are coming out of flight school having flown a small composite twin @ 3000' in good weather for, what, 120 hours? and then go flying in a 737 or 320 SIM before being put on the line ! Do they really have the depth of skill and experience that us 'oldies' do? Have they ever wrestled a turboprop safely to the ground in turbulent crosswinds at their personal limits?

The authorities need to make a decision: Are they going to allow the continued reduction of piloting skills to occur, and therefore 'accept' the occasional crash - in which case they need to justify that thinking - or are they going to do something to keep raw flying skills at the forefront of aviation practice?

[wiggy]

@wiggy, Well that is for the XAA's to say, not me. We used to have to perform and record 3 practice autolands every 6 months, of which 2 could be flown in the SIM, so I would have thought that was enough opportunity in 6 months for even the long-haul only pilots?


I'm not sure where logging autolands comes into it (other than it was about the only thing that we did/ do ;) on the line that we have to log for the XAA.

I'm simply not sure you can set a target/monthly/three monthly requirement to log certain types of handling exercises and approaches on the aircraft as was done "back in the day", certainly in an organisation I flew for, where you'd get ***** by the stats officer and boss if you hadn't flown your two simulated engine out SRAs for the month. :rolleyes:

I apologise for teaching to suck eggs etc, but at a rough guess where I work many of the Long Haul P2s might only get a shot at get 2-3 approaches in a average month. Obviously (?) not all of those approaches can be hand flown e.g. because of Ops manual restrictions for approaches in weather close to Cat 1 limits, increasing frequency of RNAV approaches ( BTW another recurrent sim box tick that uses up time but adds nil to hand flying practise) etc.

Given the amount of exposure my colleagues get it's not uncommon, especially in the winter months, to fly with pilots who haven't hand flown an ILS for several months, and it's not been down to laziness.

I actually think they mostly do remarkably well given the lack of opportunity for hand flying........

[RAT 5]

Wiggy. I understand and sympathise. Finding a 'fits all' solution is never easy. It's like FTLs. One size does not fit all. I heard of problems in one long haul heavy crew operator. The SFO's were rostered as safety/cruise pilots with the newbies. The captain needed recurrency landings, plus autolands, and the newbies need experience. This the SFO's had naff all handling time. Then came their command upgrade process. they were rusty as hell and some failed. Their fault? No.
What troubles many of us is the lack of skills in the short haul market. There, there are no mitigating circumstances other than company culture. There is opportunity enough. The fact that it is not taken, or is to allowed, is the root cause of the problem. One could argue who needs the skill more, the multi-sector short-haul minor-airport ILS/NPA pilot or the few-sector, long-haul, major airport ILS autoland pilot. They are different animals. Both should have the basic skills, but who need them more on a daily basis?

[Uplinker]

I'm not sure where logging autolands comes into it (other than it was about the only thing that we did/ do on the line that we have to log for the XAA.


My point was that it was something that the CAA required us to do and record to keep our autoland proficiency up, and my suggestion is that this idea could be applied to manually flown approaches.:ok:

I'm simply not sure you can set a target/monthly/three monthly requirement to log certain types of handling exercises and approaches on the aircraft

Well it worked OK for autolands, and we've got to do something. My suggestion might just start the ball rolling and get us all thinking towards the mindset of flying manually - especially if it were a requirement of the XAA. This should not cost anything to do either, and whatever we do has to be accepted by the airlines as well as the pilots. So ideally it needs to be easy and cost free.

[RAT 5]

especially if it were a requirement of the XAA. This should not cost anything to do either, and whatever we do has to be accepted by the airlines as well as the pilots. So ideally it needs to be easy and cost free.

Given that some airlines encourage, actively, the development and maintenance of manual piloting skills, and some don't, the change in attitude of the latter may need a tickle of encouragement from an XAA. However, for that encouragement to be published, the XAA (EASA/FAA to make it equal for all) would need to acknowledge 'there is a problem'. I don't think pilots would object, but the blinkered airlines would howl in protest and 'being interfered with' where they believe there is no problem. They would argue that nothing was broke so no need to fix it. Their safety record would be their defence.
Regarding logging autolands: not only are they logged, but the accuracy & performance of the a/c and airport is assessed. Logging a raw data visual/ILS approach would also need an assessment of its calibre. Who does that? You or your colleague?

[wiggy]

My suggestion might just start the ball rolling and get us all thinking towards the mindset of flying manually - especially if it were a requirement of the XAA.

Agreed, now I'll post the following as long as some people don't accuse me of being...well, a certain word.

I try to grab manual flying as much as I can. As a result of a previous discussion for a while I have indeed logged manual ILS's/appoaches vs. Coupled (inc. autolands)..there, I've admitted it..:\

FWIW last calendar year, >850 flying hours, Long haul with a handful for "shuttle sectors"...:

Hand flown ILS's 21
Self positioned Visual approaches 2
Coupled ILS/RNAV - 12

So that's a total of 35 approaches in a year for a captain ...for the average P2 on my fleet that's going to be a lower figure due to their heavy crewing requirements.

[Uplinker]

So about two manually flown ILS's or visual approaches per month. That seems reasonable, and three per six months would appear to be entirely possible?

Hi RAT, I don't want to get bogged down with the autoland thing, but the form I am talking about was a personal record of our autolands, and all we did was record the date when we performed an autoland or a practice autoland; which airport, what the wind was and the general weather conditions. I have just had a look, but I can't find mine right now and can't remember what its CAA form number was - maybe it was only a company form. We did not assess the autoland quality, merely that we ourselves had performed one. This is not to be confused with the 'unsatisfactory autoland performance' form that you might be thinking of?

I am suggesting the same sort of form, but instead of autolands, we would record our own manually flown approaches.

They would argue that nothing was broke so no need to fix it. Their safety record would be their defence. .....and totally unnecessary crashes due to bad manual handling such as the San Fransisco 777 (can't remember the details) and all the others would be our answer.

[RAT 5]

.....and totally unnecessary crashes due to bad manual handling such as the San Fransisco 777 (can't remember the details) and all the others would be our answer.

Agree.

[N1EPR]

How much manual flying is needed?? We all should be able to fly the a/c manually and be able to think about any problem we encounter at the same time. How much manual flying is needed to do this well vary with individuals.

The problems that we may encounter that cause the automatics to fail will be serious enough to require the intellect of both pilots to solve. If the flying pilot has to use all his mental abilities to aviate it leaves the cockpit short of the needed expertise to solve the problem.

In short the ability to aviate manually should be innate and not require all the full attention of the flying pilot. This will only be available to those that keep their scan and skills up to date.

[RAT 5]

In short the ability to aviate manually should be innate and not require all the full attention of the flying pilot. This will only be available to those that keep their scan and skills up to date.

Spot on. The tick in the box flying exercises often allowed in the sim every 3 years without any accompanying stresses come no-where near achieving the abilities you describe.
Something so simple is to practice is an ILS on the small SBY instruments. When I did my command upgrade it was an exercise in the syllabus. It was deemed that any self-respecting captain should be able to. Many of the new generation have full PFD on SBY electrics, and it would take multiple failures of electrics & screens to achieve the small SBY instruments only, but why not use it as an educating exercise to improve feel/touch & scan. You can do an OPC in quick short time and then use the rest of the 4.00hrs for pure manual flying exercises with a few simple QRH non-normals thrown in to tick those boxes. You keep flying under radar vectors and configure for the ILS while the PNF does the QRH switching under your supervision. It would teach PF AND PNF/PM to multi-task and be accurate. Just needs some imagination in writing the annual syllabus.

[Centaurus]

Many of the new generation have full PFD on SBY electrics, and it would take multiple failures of electrics & screens to achieve the small SBY instruments only, but why not use it as an educating exercise to improve feel/touch & scan

Agree. In fact, on all ILS I advise the PF to bring up the ILS up on the standby ADI.

It gives the pilot practice at switching his gaze solely from the PFD ILS display to a few inches across the instrument panel to the standby ADI where the needles may be slightly different and the nose attitude scale is very small.

Depending on the design of the instrument, the needles of the standby ADI can partially hide the horizon bar making it difficult to see the real nose attitude. Having the ILS switched on the standby ADI during every ILS, gives the pilot (left or right seat) efficient scanning practice at using the standby ADI for real if the situation ever demands it.

[PEI_3721]

.....and totally unnecessary crashes due to bad manual handling such as the San Fransisco 777 (can't remember the details) and all the others would be our answer.

This conclusion is typical of hindsight bias; humans tend to focus on the the last action or person involved in the event, thus constructing a cause based on the outcome.
Such thoughts, and being unable to remember, suggests that nothing was learnt from this incident, nothing that would apply to you ('you' in this sense is not personal, but generic; 'you' as individuals, operators, trainers, regulators, and manufacturers); i.e. it wouldn't happen to me.

Learning requires deeper thought about events. It's easy to relate outcome by looking back, instead we should try to look forward from the crew's point of view at the time and consider all that preceded the accident.
One problem is that we depended too much on official reports, which generally focus on a causal route based on 'factual' evidence. This more often hinders wider learning as the possibilities which might help avoid other accidents are not considered because they were not proven in the accident, but they may have influenced the outcome ... we don't know, but it's worth the thought.

Thus for SF 777 we could consider the influence of ATC, the approach procedure, the automation design, operator training and procedural guidance, if the crew knew about the flight system weakness, or were aware of it in this event. The latter could argue for more system implementation training and use of automation - practice in daily operations.
Which of the above could apply to you; this would be a more useful crew room discussion than that assuming an outcome, blame the human, poor manual flying, etc.

[AKAAB]

After sixteen years of pushing the same buttons on the A320/321, I felt stagnated. So, I added a Comm-Glider rating last summer.

I hand-fly the bus more than most, but getting out and flying by the seat of my pants and working thermals to keep a glider in the air was a CTRL>ALT>DEL for my brain. If you want to improve your overall skills, go fly a glider for a couple of hours. It's done wonders for me.

:ok:

[Uplinker]

This conclusion is typical of hindsight bias; humans tend to focus on the the last action or person involved in the event, thus constructing a cause based on the outcome.
Such thoughts, and being unable to remember, suggests that nothing was learnt from this incident, nothing that would apply to you ('you' in this sense is not personal, but generic; 'you' as individuals, operators, trainers, regulators, and manufacturers); i.e. it wouldn't happen to me

What I meant was; I couldn't remember the airline or the flight number or the date of the crash. However, I do remember that there seemed to be no monitoring of speed or energy - which is a fundamental and shocking piloting error - and which ultimately resulted in the crash.

I for one, am acutely aware that my skills are not as razor sharp as they were when I was handflying turbo props which only had manual thrust. So I think/hope that I do learn from such things - by them helping me stay reasonably pro-active in practising my skills when I can.

I think automation practice might be a red herring. If we all hand-flew more often, we should be better placed to recognise when the automatics were getting it wrong, (or have been wrongly programmed), because the system responses would be inconsistent with correcting the deviation(s) and we would then know to take over.

I like the idea of glider flying, and might look into that. But how much does it cost and when would I have the time? Also, after a week of getting up at 0300, the last thing I want to do is more flying, and I think Mrs Uplinker might object!

[wiggy]

I like the idea of glider flying, and might look into that. But how much does it cost and when would I have the time? Also, after a week of getting up at 0300, the last thing I want to do is more flying, and I think Mrs Uplinker might object!

I know what you mean. I have enough on with work and keeping home life afloat. I know most here, self included, are inclined to be Total Aviation Person minded and a bit of SEP/gliding to sharpen up the skills sounds great... but pilots doing things out due to a sense of vocation is one of the reasons the industry has gone the way it has.

Do surgeons spend spare time at weekends honing their skills by dissecting small animals? Do bank managers routinely spend evenings sharpening their arithmetical and analytical skills just in case they are presented with some difficult decisions at work?

Sorry to be controversial but if there is an industry problem then it's up to the industry to find the hours, kit, and the funding, we shouldn't be expected to take up a hobby to fix the problem....

[ManaAdaSystem]

Interesting discussion.
Apart from what to train, what options are there?

-Extra training in a FFS simulator. Company pays. Not likely.
-Private flying, motor or glider. Fun, but time consuming and expensive.

KISS, people.
Lockheed Martin took over Microsoft Flight Simulator and developed it further.
Prepare3D, P3D.

Lockheed Martin - Prepar3D (http://www.prepar3d.com)

Buy a high quality 737 or 777 from PMDG. Add it to P3D.

https://www.precisionmanuals.com

Add a set of flight controls, and off you go. You can train whatever you want.

Raw data, IFR, VFR, ILS, FMC, it's all there.
Low cost. Available anytime.
AND, the model fly by the same numbers as the real aircraft. Do a take off calculation with your company software. Set the PMDG aircraft up with the same weight. The FMC speeds are correct. Customize the model to match your company aircraft.
You need a certain thrust and pitch to keep 250 kts at 10000 ft in the real aircraft. It wil be the same in your PMDG aircraft.

Too much? Nearly all systems in the PMDG 737/777 have been modelled. Correctly. You can practise system failures, and you will get the same indications as the real aircraft.

It's that good. It's time to stop making fun of flight simulators and see the potential. For practice. Transition training.

[RAT 5]

You suggest KISS. I totally agree. KISS. Why is there a perceived or real problem since the magic of EFIS, LNAV/VNAV & Auto-throttle arrived? The whole Children of the Magenta Line' concept. I flew for various airlines with these magic box of tricks. They didn't suddenly erode our skills. We used them every day in the same manner we used the old tech a/c, but it made the job easier and more accurate. That was very satisfying. The pilot orientated management expected it of their crews. Now all you get is don't crash, don't take too much fuel, don't be late, don't deviate from the encyclopedia of SOP's (at your peril), don't practice the black art of manual visual approaches.
The KISS answer is back to the future and restore the black arts every day. If managers aren't going to encourage that, which is free, they certainly are not going to be so charity minded as to provide a big boys toy simulator for your fun. That's impractical considering much of the problem is within airlines who have multitude of bases over the horizon.
It's a problem created by line culture and initial training and it will need to be solved there. The best solutions are those applied to the root causes.
I hate to think what will happen to taxi drivers, lorry drivers and coach drivers who need to navigate the jungle of inner cities after they've spent most of their time in 'drive themself vehicles' on mutli lane motorways. OMG. Manual control close to all those people. And don't start me on auto-parking v DIY.

[Linktrained]

Cost of Gliding...(then !)

The UK Treasury limited " foreign exchange " to £25 , and later £50 each per annum, with any foreign currency returned to ones Bank. Return fares out and back, could be bought in the U.K. in Sterling.
The cost of hire for an Auster at Croydon or Southend etc. was then £3 per hour. This may give some scale to money and values at that time !

I went for a week long gliding course at Troyes to obtain my A, B, and C certificates. There were few thermals in October, and the Instructor and I communicated in Franglais.

Later I went for a further course near Toulouse, a Ridge site where there was ridge soaring, for endurance. Sometimes this would be with a short winch launch off the side of the hill followed by a turn to land up the slope with what was now a tail wind, or alternatively landing with quite a strong ( for a glider) strong wind, remembering to lower the "into wind wing" before stopping.

LT

[Linktrained]

The next stage was the "Brevet D" or Silver C which had to be done in two or three flights for Height Gained (1000m or more), Distance (50 Km +) and Duration (5 hours plus) Fewer than 300 UK Silver Cs had been issued at that time.

There were further stages possible, for Gold or Diamond C but I never got near enough to know what they were ! But only for distance and Height gained, even before FTLs came in.

(Duration for me was always less than 2 or 3 hours on single or twin engined aeroplanes. Or more like 15 hours on fours.)

Winch launches were the norm, and economic on petrol at perhaps half a pint per launch which might provide one with several hours of flight - if you found more lift, which might be a thermal, hill lift or if very lucky/ skilled, a Standing wave or a Cb.

Enjoy your Gliding

LT

[mnttech]

My new airline have a policy allowing pilots to use the sims whenever they are not in use for self-directed practice, and as somebody moving on to long haul, I hope to try to get in once every month or so to bash through a bit of raw data circuits, approaches and failures.

There also needs to be a qualified panel operator to run the box, so at our place it's not easy to organised on a regular and frequent basis.

Ask the simulator maintenance department, and see if they have a tech that can run the panel for you

[Uplinker]

Thanks for the heads-up Mana., I like the look of that. Any Airbus options yet?

.

[plhought]

Thanks for the heads-up Mana., I like the look of that. Any Airbus options yet?

.
A320-X | Flight Sim Labs, Ltd. (http://www.flightsimlabs.com/index.php/a3xx-master-series-a320-3/)
This appears to be nearing release. Looks impressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OhhAMsayu8

[Uplinker]

Thanks, that (A320) looks impressive!

Have been flying Airbus FBW for 11 years, and the cockpit stuff looked spot on to me.

I will await its release with interest.

[Centaurus]

on which we "learned the ropes" doing night freight with crusty and difficult Captains.

In my experience it was despite crusty and difficult captains as well as cowboy captains:ok:

[galaxy flyer]

The problem is one needs to have the skills drilled in very early in flight training, so they become "part of one" as subconscious as breathing. More importantly, one needs to have emotional response (fear, flight or fright, startle, whatever the term of art used) wrung out of one's personality concurrent with the base skills. Once embedded, those skills will remain with less required maintenance, if you will. The primary skill USAF UPT taught was confidence in all kinds of scary conditions. MPL training in simulators are highly unlikely to suffice.

[Amadis of Gaul]

In my experience it was despite crusty and difficult captains as well as cowboy captains:ok:
Amen to that!

[RAT 5]

Somehow or other there is a thread on 'Terms & Endearment' that has morphed into Piloting Skills, so I copy here.

Go practice raw data, crosswinds, OEI, etc in the excellent FB SIM facility

How on earth can you practice/improve/maintain handling skills to cope with challenging manoeuvres in a Fixed Base sim?

In this discussion there has been a mix up between manual flying & raw data flying. Is it sensible to fly a raw data ILS on a low cloud base day into a busy airport with a complicated GA with fare paying pax who want to be on time? Probably not. Is it fair on a 1000' cloud base day? Possibly, but that would likely give you only 1500' to play with, and the ILS is not so sensitive at that range; so is it worth it for learning? Perhaps. Manual FD ILS should present no problem down to 500'. If you can't then you shouldn't be there. The next is a manual visual arrival. That should be like riding a bike. There should not be any increase in workload, but that will only be if the skill is kept sharp. We are back to the old argument of the pilot being the last chance insurance policy when the automatics and other systems go AWOL. The pax, and I as CEO, would expect my crews to cut it and bring home the bacon; un-BBQ'd. But there will be those who can't, and it won't be their fault, necessarily.
Much depends on SOP's. I once flew jump seat during base training. There was a very experienced DC-8 captain trying to wrestle a B757 round the circuit with FD, as per SOP. That meant lots of talking to PM to set MCP. He was struggling and his confidence dropping into a dangerous downward spiral. I suggested to the TRE to switch off the FD. The guy flew it round on rails; silently.
We pinged it into Corfu, Kos, Samos, Zakinthos etc. and even LGW & LTN when allowed. There was no increase in workload because we both could do it and we both knew what the other guy was going to do without a 2 page briefing of when he was going to pick his nose and scratch his backside. He might take flaps & gear slightly different to you, but, if it was within safe parameters, all was cool. If not, then you screamed, gently.
I found flying an LNAV/VANV visual circuit was a huge increase in workload because I could not think ahead of the a/c as an instinctive pilot, be ahead of the a/c and control it: I was following the damn FMC as some play station.
It might be true that full use of automatics, when & if they are fully understood, is a very safe manner to operate, perhaps the safest. If those systems are not fully understood we have seen what happens and then it was not the safest manner. Going into some large airports ATC is effectively dictating how the a/c is operated. They give HDG, SPD, ALT from 30nm out to 'push the tin' with efficient flow. It is the simplest just to input the numbers into the MCP that ATC instruct you with. You select flaps & gear to comply with those speeds. No judgement. Tickling the V/S for a CDA if appropriate. However, any CEO should not expect any critical reduction in safety should the pilots be required to operate manually due to simple failures. This accidents we seen on Air Crash recently, where the crews have had huge control problems and survived are a testament to the skills of a pilot, and huge amounts of luck. But a Gary Player said, "the more I practice the luckier I become."