With FMC, CDU/MCDU, do you still feel like a pilot?

[Ignition Override]

Just curious, because after three months on an FMC, I felt a bit dismayed and knew that all of the credit for smooth flying went to pushing buttons for the automation, except for hand-flying to FL 180 or so, along with the approach ( HSI in ILS mode) and landing. Back on a steam-gauge plane, I miss the higher thrust and VNAV help on the Boeing, but at least we know who gets the credit or blame, whether smooth or not, and WE are the autothrottles.

Don't trust the autopilot or "magic" too much on any plane-it can get you in deep trouble very quickly (or the ATL... ATIS). The same goes for your actual weight and balance...

[static]

When passengers ask me the same thing, I always tell them it`s a bit like writing a book:
Newton wrote his books by hand, today`s scientists write their books on the pc, which makes the writing a lot easier, but the accomplishments on scientific level are just as amazing....

Don`t trust the magenta line though...

[casio man]

At the end of the day...a plane is a plane. With all the automation of a Big Bus, she still flies like a dream.
All the buttons require a bit more thought than to hand fly it. Always tell my right seaters to knock it off if it gets to hard. Do I still feel like a pilot?
Yup, I do.

[AhhhVC813]

It comes down to whether you accept, that in the main, a pilot has become more of an MCP/FCU pusher, once the metal is in the air. Doesn't stop anyone being or having the skills of a pilot, but the terms of reference have changed somewhat in the last fifteen years. And the answer is yes by the way...............

[boofhead]

I fly with FOs who cannot do a visual circuit without the Flight Director, who cannnot fly a non-precision approach without the autopilot, who cannot calculate a descent point without the FMC, and who would never attempt to fly an approach manually unless the vis was at least 1500 metres. They routinely allow the autopilot to do the approach down to 500 feet then disconnect and proudly claim to have flow a "manual" ILS. They never fly a VOR or NDB if there is an ILS available, and ask for a different runway if they have more than 15 knots of crosswind. They cannot fly a visual approach unless they have an ILS glideslope or PAPI.
Why do they do these things? Because their Captains also do them, and they refuse to let the FOs do it any other way.
And just consider; these FOs are tomorrow's captains.
Flying skills? Don't make me laugh.

[AhhhVC813]

Boofhead, how on earth do they pass recurrent sim chcks then? If you can't do it in the sim, you certainly haven't got a hope in hell on the aircraft.

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

Boofhead,I flew rhs to a skipper recently who spent the entire flight bemoaning the lack of manual/raw data skills of the young effoes.He then hand flew the approach to such an abysmal standard that we had to go "Visual"to spare ATC further alarm.(I was visual btw-he was simply glued head down in the panel)All the time I as pnf was working like a blue arsed fly.Our level of cross checking/monitoring was halved.The only "situational awareness" he had was on his basic scan.Its the old time and place for everything argument.Our job is to get from A to B safely and smoothly not to impress the guy in the other seat with your percieved skills as a stick and rudder merchant.When the safest smoothest way of doing it is with all the auto gizmotry thats what you should be using.When you start crossing your hands on the MCP and furiously twiddling nobs with a nice empty runway in view out the window thats when you can show us your nice hand flying skills.You have a responsibility to utilise the best approach aids available.You have a responsibility to use the runway most appropriate to the prevailing wind.Taking a NDB approach to a crosswind runway in IMC when there is an ILS or an into wind runway up for grabs sounds like a bad command decision to me.It sounds like the guys you are flying with are using there brains and making good judgement calls in light of all the relevent factors,not least of which is there own ability.The stick and rudder skills will improve over the time if practised in appropriate conditions,thats what co-pilot time is all about.Keep the nail biting for the sim.

[This message has been edited by HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD (edited 10 January 2001).]

[boofhead]

I have seen it written that the most dangerous thing for a person is ignorance of ignorance. If he does not know he is ignorant, he will not do anything about it. The trend seems to be to let real flying skills go, and to become good managers of the systems. Indeed that is the only choice for a 'Bus driver. So 'pilots' will lose their flying skills and not even be aware of it. Sure, the airplanes keep getting better and they make up for a lot of the degraded piloting skills, but there will come a day when the pilot will lose the automatics, or the airplane will not be capable under the conditions, and the pilot will have to take manual control. If he has not practiced, how will he manage? Like the China Airlines pilot in CKS, I would imagine.
The crosswind limit for autoland on the B747 is 25 knots. It is 30 knots for a manual landing. So the pilot must take over under the 'extreme' conditions. How is he to do that if he always chooses runways into wind, ILS, FD, Autopilot, etc, and never flies the airplane if he cannot see where he is going?
The day I cannot perform in any weather (well, better than CAT3) at least as well as the autopilot/automatics, to the level that the airplane is always under positive control, and the passengers are comfortable and safe, I will hang up my hat. Since I want that day to be a long way off, I will continue to maintain my flying skills the only way it can be done; by practice.
You guys can sit back and let the systems do the work for you, remember, the only real danger is ignorance of your own ignorance.

[Flight Safety]

Maybe the only way to keep the stick and rudder skills really sharp is to practice them off duty in a smaller plane. I agree that the deterioration of basic flying skills is potentially hazardous.

[mkaram]

Arent these covered in simulation sessions?

[Roc]

I'm starting to percieve a common notion here, it seems many are under the impression that a pilot can't handfly an aircraft at least reasonably smooth without the aid of automatics!!!! Pathetic! maybe this is the heart of the original question, As a pilot you owe it to yourself and those who rely on you to keep your skills sharp!!! and, No, one or two sim sessions a year is not enough!!I cant believe anybody would even say that!! How hard is it to handfly to altitude. At my company we get paid the same whether we fly a 767 or a 727, I choose the 727 mostly because what I see happening to the 75/76 pilots, they dont fly the planes!!!the example of the Capt who couldnt handfly an approach should be a wake-up call to all you electric jet pilots to stay sharp

[Flight Safety]

If the airlines would ever listen to this suggestion....

In the ideal world of flight safety, each airline should own a small number of some type of low operating cost multi-engine aircraft with conventional flight controls. Pilots (especially those flying fully automatic systems, but really all the pilots) should be required to fly them periodically. The course work should include hand flying to altitude, hand flown approaches to ILS-VOR-NDB, hand flown engine out procedures, etc. I even think a small number of aerobatic planes should be on hand (2 seaters, pilot and check pilot) so aerobatics can be practiced for unusual attitude recovery skills. I even think low-g aerobatics should be practiced, like stall, spin, and dive recoveries that keep the G-meter below 2.5g.

Of course I don't know of any airlines that do this...

------------------
Safe flying to you...

[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 13 January 2001).]

[Slasher]

Only a fool would stand in the way of progress. But remember how BA made a big stink about INS, and insisted a flight nav be carried until it was absolutely determined the equipment was reliable as claimed?

Theres nothing basicaly wrong using a FMC, MCP, AP, etc and other electronic toys. The problem is they CAN fail and HAVE failed, either through loss of electrics, the gadget itself fails, EI, coffee spillage or a host of other reasons. Because they are NOT failsafe, they should not be solely relyed upon. Therefore basic piloting skills must be maintained.

A simple experiment can help you judge wether you are still a pilot or not:
How do you react upon arriving at your electric aircraft on a dark and stormey night, away from major base, and discover the FMC, AT and APs are MEL'ed inop?

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

Nostalgia aint what it used to be.I'm always curious as to when exactly this halcyon era of faultless instrument manual pilots was.Would it be around the same time that aircraft flew into mountains at a rate that would shut down the industry today? Since the onset of highly automated/FMC equiped aircraft roughly co-incided with modern ideas of multi crew cooperation is it fair to asume that FO's prior to then transitioned to the LHS having been nothing better than the Skippers sexual advisor for a few years? (i.e "If I want your F**king advice I'll ask for it.")
Accounts from the glory days of flying certainly give the impression of co-pilots rarely being blessed with a sector.No doubt the crusty old skippers bemoaned the abilities of these young whipersnappers who relied on hydraulic flight controls and who had never even flown in an open cockpit.Our industry is a fast changing one and we need to keep abreast of it as professionals.While "Hand flying " is still a valuable tool in any modern pilots box we have to keep its significance in context.If it's the best way to get the job done-use it.If not -don't.
The "What happens when it all goes tits up" argument is only valid to the point of a reasonable expectation of the reliability of the system.How many of us would know how to start the car if we had to retard the spark/richen the mixture etc? Does that make us less capable as drivers of modern cars?.What if the auto choke failed?.
I have absolutely no doubt that todays generation of so-called "Button Pushing Pilots" will in ten years scratch their grey beards and mutter about the young upstarts who dont even know how to program the FMC when the datalink fails!

[Roadtrip]

Automation is your friend. Dependence on it is your enemy. I try and hand-fly at least half of departures and arrivals, and use the autopilot+FD for the other half. At one point I was flying so many manually that I felt my proficiency at manipulating the autopilot was slipping. It's all a matter of perspective. You've got to stay sharp at both. In a high workload environment like rough wx with aircraft malfunctions, automation is your friend because it frees up brain cells to do more important tasks. It's not a one or the other arguement. My company highly encourages hand-flying, but also expects proficiency with the autopilot.

[Flight Safety]

I agree with you Roadtrip, automation is wonderful and it can be your best friend. I also agree with you that you have to be balanced in the use of your skills in order to stay sharp in all of them.

The problem with any technology advance is that new skills are created and are sometimes "marketed" to replace the older skills. But in aviation the older skills are still extremely valuable, as they are the very skills called upon when the new technology fails.

Think about why new pilots are still taught the fundamentals of stick and rudder flying as the foundational skills for piloting. Also consider why "maintaining proper attitude control" while making certian required maneuvers when you can't see anything out of the window, is still the foundational skill for all instrument flying.

Each new technology has the potential to isolate you from older methods you may have to fall back on. GPS can isolate you from the INS, the INS can isolate you from RNAV, VOR and NDB flying. FBW and it's protections can isolate you from the risks of low energy flying near the ground. The autopilot can isolate you from the flight director, and the flight director can isolate you from flying older types of approaches.

As pilots we owe it to ourselves to stay current in all the skills that we might need.

------------------
Safe flying to you...


[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 14 January 2001).]

[Slasher]

There are some things automation just cant do:

* Fly a bad-wx circuit to landing (well not safeley anyway)
* Fly a bad-wx engine-out circuit to landing
* It cant judge between hazardous and safe weather
* It has no "experience" and cannot draw from it
* It cannot make a decision
* It cannot weigh up pros and cons
* It wont work without electricity
* It is never be 100% reliable. It can fail at any time, and has done so in the past
* It "knows" what it knows now. It cant "see" what will happen ahead.
* It cant firewall throttles
* It couldnt care less if it dies
* Wont let the aircraft suffer structural stress (even if its needed in order to survive)
* It cant see the tell-tale signs of potential disaster
* it cant act inteligently
* It cant see that truck on the runway.
* It cant fly manual reversion
* It cant fly with a jammed stab
* It cant ditch
* It cant land with a gear still up (it could try though!)
* Its never has any bright ideas
* Worst of all, it cant fill out and sign the bloodey tech log! :mad:

But there are some things it can do:

* Smash you into real estate
* Smash you into the hills
* Accept (after all the warnings/scratch-pad mssgs etc) any lies you tell it (FMC)
* Calmly fly you (with your TCAS blaring) into a mid-air collision
* Ignore ATC
* Take every piece of ADC info literaly

Just remember the DC-10 prang at Sioux City. Thats the whole argument in a nutshell.

[Flight Safety]

Automation DOES add to flight safety, up to the limits of what's it capable of doing.

The danger in is learning to rely on it to the extent that you forget all of your other airmanship skills. Every system on board the aircraft designed to help the pilot has it's strengths and weaknesses. Good airmanship requires a good understanding of those properties, and retaining the skills necessary to safely fly the airplane when those systems are not available. Any other approach to flying is foolish.