Raw Data

[Gear_lockedNG]

Do you often fly using raw data and manually? As for me flying on NG planes only by pushing buttons seems as loosing your abilities. What is your opinion?
Happy New Year!

[Tor]

I ONLY fly raw data and hands on ;)

[Hung start]

You bet, but not inbound for Shere.. Shere, well Moscow :) :) I click off everything except engines (well almost) when; weather and Capt. allow it, and I feel like doing it. Makes them sim. rides every 6 months a lot calmer, and me more content with my job. Happy new year....

[shakespeare]

Nothing wrong with a bit of raw data for practice. However I think it should be the exception rather than the rule. I don't know how many times I have corrected pilots for letting their scan rate lapse (particularly in a bit of turbulence on departure). They concentrate so hard on the ADI/PFD and forget the rest. If they had their F/D on, they would have received good info to turn left/right to maintain the correct track etc. Accuracy is very important at many airports.

I know some guys have followed their F/D into the ground, but it is usually pretty rare. There are probably grounds for a good argument on both sides, however if F/D's were not an improvement on safety, they would not have been designed in the first place. If they are fitted (as they are on nearly all modern jet transport a/c), they should be used!

[quid]

I do some of the Simulator evaluation rides for the hiring process at my carrier. We do them all on raw data.

Some of the instrument scans I see are pretty poor. It usually turns out that those pilots have been relying on the flight directors exclusivly.

We all need to keep in practice.

[Canuck_AV8R]

Shakespeare:

I would have to disagree with you somewhat on this one. The reason you have had to correct fellow aviators for "letting their scan rate lapse" is because IMHO we have become far too reliant on F/Ds and automation to the detriment of a good basic instrument scan. What are these fellows going to do when it is the proverbial dark and stormy night and the automation decides to go on the fritz. This is not a good time to brush up on your basic IFR skills. However the previous weeks of CAVOK weather were the perfect opportunity.

I do agree that when the workload is high ie a complicated SID or bad Wx then by all means use all the automation you want as long as it really decreases your workload rather than having the opposite effect.

I don't have too much choice on the Jurassic Jet I fly (B737-200) because the F/D really sucks and more times than not it it is either commanding something opposite to what you expect or it is just plain sloooow. I found my transition to the B737 quite challenging as I too had become very reliant on the split cue F/D on my previous type to the detriment of my raw data skills. Never again. I now routinely hand fly without F/D from TOD to landing, it keeps my skills sharp and makes those 6 monthly trips to the sim just a little bit less stressful.

As always JMHO
Cheers
Canuck

[Cardinal]

I fly raw data in preparation for checkrides. And I fly raw data during training. And I fly raw data when I feel like it. And I fly raw data when I don't feel like it.

But sometimes I'll cave and use the Mark I Rudder Pedal Autopilot.

Flight Director......You mean a CFI?? :)

[alosaurus]

A significant number of alt busts each year are caused by raw data flying.Many flight directors will allow alt sel to be armed providig a timely beam bar as you approach level.It also helps keep NHP in the loop as he continues to select cleared level.I recommend this,initially,to those who intend to hammer their real flying skills back into shape during 2001.

[static]

I`ve been folowing the thread with interest.
I guess most postings are from people who don`t fly big jets commercially in busy environments. Otherwise they are just brawling unprofessionally or plain stupid.
The automation on today`s flightdecks is there because it`s SAFE. It reduces workload and thus increases situational awareness.
If you choose not to use it you willingly put your plane at more risk then necessary, and others as well, when you overshoot your level or mis your reclearence.
Do you also regularly cut your number one engine on take off for practice?
If you feel like you need extra training for your checkrides, contact your training department and don`t do it with paying customers in the back.

[Dan Winterland]

I always fly raw data. Thats because my aircraft's FD was made by Elves from cast off meccano bits on a friday afternoon. I can do a better job without the bother of extra switchology.

[Captain Tobias Wilcox]

To those who think raw data is dangerous.....

Part One of, I fear, several parts:

Does your autopilot fly automatic go-arounds from non-precision approaches? Does it fly TCAS avoidance maneouvres? Does it fly terrain avoidance maneouvres after GPWS warnings? Does it fly the visual segment onto final after a circling approach?

No, I didn't think so, and these are all very good reasons to keep your hand-flying skills honed.

I once saw a very experienced pilot crash on am all-engines go-around in a centre-line thrust aircraft (simulator) because he was distracted by a level one (single chime - nothing to worry about) alert whilst flying by hand. One flight director had failed on account of an electrical glitch, but the poor chap's skills were so rusty that he would, for real, have killed himself and all aboard. How would the subsequent enquiry have regarded the fact that this professional flyer couldn't fly?

Get real, get in practise, and enjoy - raw data is safe, and can be rewarding and efficient.

[411A]

Many, it would appear, have "forgotten" how to fly a departure or arrival using VOR radials and DME arcs, and instead rely completely on the FMS/FMC. Instrument flying skills once learned and perfected, are now abandoned for the sake of automation. And THEN, they complain about taking a bus to the staff carpark.

[BOING]

Anybody who NEEDS a flight director or autopilot to fly an aircraft safely has only one place to go - OUT, RIGHT NOW.

Yes, flight directors can improve accuracy. Yes, they can reduce workload. Yes, they can prevent an altitude bust if you are really tired or switched off. Yes, they are usually reliable. But to suggest you NEED a flight director to avoid altitude busts etc. is an admission of weak flying skills to the extent of being dangerous. I do not wish to share the airspace with someone who is that weak on basic flying skills. Also, flight directors are great tools but to say they are put into aircraft to purely increase safety is misleading. They are put into aircraft so that we can operate the aircraft to LOWER LIMITS with an equal level of safety to increase reliability and profits. (This is good business practice). There is no net gain in safety, the equipment is better so the limits are lower, safety remains the same.

The biggest difficulty with flying raw data nowadays is that, with the introduction of glass cockpits, some of the instruments are actually more difficult to interpret than they were in round dial days. Glass can actually reduce situational awareness - unless your idea of situational awareness is watching a moving map display and disregarding raw data. (Except that attitude indicators are almost universally better in glass). Over reliance on electronics is FAR, FAR more dangerous than the occasional raw data practice under reasonable conditions.

------------------


[This message has been edited by BOING (edited 07 January 2001).]

[Hung start]

Static,
Hope you´re not in the front office when automation goes down. I do fly big jets as you say, but I said that there´s a time for everything. Nobody on this thread claimed to be flying raw data in sh** wx. inbound LHR. Comparing it with shutting down an engine before take off is exactly what you accused us of being: plain stupid!!

[Art E. Fischler-Reisen]

At an East Asian Airport I witnessed a pilot (in a wavering voice) announce to ATC that the auto-ILS would not engage and therefore he may have to declare an emergency.

Very worrying! These people really are out there flying as captain.

P.S. It was a scheduled B737!

[This message has been edited by Art E. Fischler-Reisen (edited 07 January 2001).]

[alosaurus]

Boing-I agree with most of what you say.Unfortunately we do have a certain section our pilot community who are over reliant on automation.These people,for whatever reason,have become button pushers (eg Static).Many,however,know that one day they could be found out and wish to develop their skills.The suggestion of alt sel only mode was emphasised as an initial step along their road to recovery.We are where we are with this group;let them develop their skills safely.

[Trinflight]

I agree that there is generally nothing wrong with flying the aircraft by raw data to maintain one's edge. However, I have seen pilots who fly raw data departures and arrivals in very busy airspace without so much as a quick look out of the window. One of these pilots explained to me that "scanning is what the right seater is in here for!"

I am all for raw date proficiency but not to the exclusion of a safe traffic scan,when in a high workload environment.

Lets not forget that two sets of eyes are better than one.

Regards,

Trinflight

[QAVION]

"At an East Asian Airport I witnessed a pilot (in a wavering voice) announce to ATC that the auto-ILS would not engage and therefore he may have to declare an emergency. Very worrying! These people really are out there flying as captain."

As I understand it, Art, in very low visibility, a fully operative autoland system will _legally_ allow an aircraft to land in worse conditions than an aircraft would when being flown manually. I guess the principle here is that the autopilot system is taking care of flying the aircraft and the Captain can concentrate on ensuring that the plane is doing it's job properly... and be ready to hit the panic button (aka the Go-Around switch) should things not seem right.

Regards.
Q.