"I have control"

[RoyHudd]

Anyone else experiencing a disproportionate increase in control take-overs on landing recently? I am referring to landing with new low-hours cadets as PF on complex jets.

I'm not blaming them, nor do I have any axe to grind. It would appear likely that more events will happen, as these folks are transitioning from light twins to complex jets, in greater numbers than before.

But something tells me that the issue is more to do with ability/aptitude levels. After all, selection was far tougher in previous times, as the requirement for new pilots was far lower. And the gradual step up from a Baron to a classic 4-crew 707 was slower and more straightforward than from a DA42 to the right seat of an A321.

Perhaps I am just guilty of moaning about how things were better in the olden days. (Which they were not, in many areas).

Any thoughts?

[RAT 5]

Are you talking about cadet pilots during Line Training or afterwards: i.e. are you an LTC or Line Captain?
Is there any common factor? i.e. too fast, too high, PIO, cross wind?
What height band are you taking over within? I would assume before 500'.
What height do these guys disconnect A/P? i.e. are they becoming unstable after disconnect or are they misusing the A/P to position the a/c?

I have only flown A320 in the sim for 45mins. I understand the principle of the sidestick and I suspect I would need a lot of practice to convert from a Boeing column to the delicacies of AB's sidestick. How much manual practice have these guys had?

[vilas]

There is no doubt that the increased and reliable automation made this transition from 200hrs to modern jet possible. It wouldn't have been possible to transition to an aircraft like B707 for everyone. In airbus FBW the skill level required is significantly lowered and flying is more procedural.
RAT5
It is very easy to transition to airbus than the other way round. Airbus flight controls handling is different but easy due to flight path stability. For a pure airbus pilot flying a 737 engine failure could be a nightmare initially.

[akindofmagic]

I'm not a trainer, but I have and do fly with plenty of low experienced guys.

I've only had to take over in the landing phase once. On the whole, I find our cadets to be at least competent and often much better than that in terms of aircraft handling, but we do have a strong manual handling ethos here.

[john_tullamarine]

I find our cadets to be at least competent

Presuming that the student has half a talent or better, it comes down to the training program.

A few of us, in years gone by on the 732, would take (the majority of) the cadet (around 200 hour CPL) group through the endorsement program and, with only a bit of extra time overall, have them up to flying the sim single pilot circuits with failures, all raw data with a reasonable standard 0/0 landing and roll out (both) AEO (and for the better students) OEI .. etc ...

It's not hard or rocket science .. but it does take a fair bit of directed effort and application both by the student and the instructor.

Mind you, the -200 wasn't the bee's knees in respect of automatic capabilities so the emphasis, necessarily, was on stick and rudder.

[RAT 5]

John. I'm from your generation i.e. B732 as 2nd jet. HS-125 before that. It has been said by many that the automatics are there to allow PF to have better & more relaxed oversight of the operation, perhaps be more accurate & efficient, in some people's eyes, but NOT to replace basic piloting skills. Unfortunately the latter is now true in some places. As was explained to me by a senior trainer, " the objective is for the cadet to use the automatics to position the a/c in landing confit at 1000' then make a manual landing. Ouch.
IMHO the new pilot, even on transition training, but certainly a cadet, should first learn to handle the beast stick & rudder, then add the bells & whistles. That is not being done enough.
Should that philosophy be for the XAA or the airline? In previous companies that philosophy came from the top when CP's were much more active pilots than nowadays. The automatic philosophy seems more prevalent where bean counters rule the roost.

[noflynomore]

IMHO the new pilot, even on transition training, but certainly a cadet, should first learn to handle the beast stick & rudder, then add the bells & whistles.

That was certainly the case in my last 3 companies, all 3 household names (at the time). As time went on and the new short, intensive ab-initio courses became the norm we all predicted doom and gloom but it never happened. The new product was top quality in terms of handling as much of the Sim stage naturally concentrated on that. It was once on the line that their tiny reserves of manual handling experience quickly became diluted by months of autopilot ops with young ish Captains (products of perhaps only the previous training regime) who seldom if ever flew manually themselves and certainly didn't encourage the newbies to do so. Naturally the cadets' skills atrophied and despite encouragement from the management few actually operated manually any more than the absolute minimum required. It's only human nature, after all, to take the easy line.
Occasionally you'd find a new f/o whose operating ability was less than perfect but this was as often down to poor judgement rather than poor flying skills - simply due to lack of experience. "I have" is as likely to be called for a judgement error as a handling one.
Bottom line, if all the manual handling they get is 40hrs Cessna, 40 Hrs twin, 40hrs Sim and onto the line they're never going to be wheels, are they? And those few skills soon deteriorate with 120 seconds of handling per day on short haul, perhaps a tenth of that long haul and 2 hrs in the sim every 6 months is far too little to keep it up. Factor in the handful of Captains who either flatly refuse manual flying requests or get so antsy and nervous that the newbie is discouraged from even asking. (a common problem - in my last company such requests were rare indeed, maybe once in a month of 4 sector days). Its a difficult problem to solve.
I think I only took control twice in 20 years on medium jets.
I never detected bean-counters' involvment in this debate.

[akindofmagic]

I always found it incredible that some captains got so uptight about manual flying. It betrays a worrying lack of confidence (and competence).

[wiggy]

Cuts both ways of course... we've got very few low hours pilots but even so I've certainly been subject to approach briefs on good wx days into base where the F/O doing the landing has been very keen that I leave the automatics in down to the handover at 1000'AAL ( I know we all have off days, but I'm not aware I scare anybody that much at medium level )....
and if wx/ traffic allows if it's the F/O's approach for my landing I always make the point at the wrap up of the approach brief that I'm more than happy if they indulge in some hand flying...it's surprising how many decline to do so and TBH it doesn't bode well for the future...

[Private jet]

Oh the delightful monitored approach... I know you have no choice in the matter. Typical BA though, just as I remember it, why do something the easy way when you can do it the complicated way for only possibly a smidgen of benefit.
Back on point if a pilot cannot comfortably manually fly an approach and landing sans autopilot, autothrottle and flight director then they shouldn't really have a licence. Pilot's licence anyway, maybe "aircraft operative" would be more appropriate, with commensurate remuneration of course....

[Private jet]

Which other airlines use it?

[noflynomore]

Seconded approval for the BA style monitored approach. I too thought it weird until I got to do it (on all approaches) and it works well and makes good sense. It's just a different way of doing the same thing but manages to dilute the "my sector/your sector" by directly involving both pilots so every sector becomes "our sector". It evens out individual idiosyncrasies and makes SOP compliance easier, and is VASTLY better/safer for low vis approaches.
I thought it a thoroughtly good idea and probably a better way CRM wise than the conventional system. Few of my colleagues, very few, once used to it had anything bad to say about it. Most who slag it off seem (guess what??) to be those who have never tried it...Ain't that a surprise?

[RexBanner]

Any PM who will sit passively and watch the PF make a complete hash of an approach just because he isn't doing the landing isn't doing his job and shouldn't be in commercial aviation. You both have "skin in the game" regardless of whose sector it is. If you have to fly somebody's approach to be reminded of that then there is something fundamentally wrong, I feel. Maybe I'm a rare example of a BA pilot who is completely underwhelmed by the monitored approach concept, the reasons why I have just given. Granted it does work well in low vis situations as stated (indeed I operated with those SOP's at another airline) but doing them all the time is a bit of a nonsense.

[Jwscud]

Ryanair use monitored approaches for CAT I with vis <1000m and cloudbase below 300ft. Also for NPAs vis <3000m and 1000ft cloud base. In both cases with the FO flying the approach for the Captain's landing.

Worked very well indeed. But the merits of monitored approaches have been done to death on here many times...

[noflynomore]

Originally Posted by RexBanner

Any PM who will sit passively and watch the PF make a complete hash of an approach just because he isn't doing the landing isn't doing his job and shouldn't be in commercial aviation.

A statement of the obvious, if I may say so. Why would anyone behave like that? For a start it would be them that has to try to pull off a landing from the botched approach which would make it very strange behaviour indeed. Even so they could do the exactly same for any approach type if so minded so I fail to see why/how this is an argument against monitored approaches rather than against incompetent pilots monitoring. Do BA have many of those? We don't.

[RexBanner]

Of course it's a statement of the obvious. Which is why it's a perfect statement to emphasize why a monitored approach isn't, in fact, needed at all. BA make out like a monitored approach is needed to ensure both pilots have skin in the game. How many other airlines have monitored approaches as SOP? Rhetorical question. The answer is why I disagree with it and why you're not going to change my mind on it. I go along with it because it's SOP and I do not disregard SOP's as a rule (and couldn't anyway in this case) but doesn't mean I have to like or agree with it.

[Reverserbucket]

Aside from the monitored approach discussion,

But something tells me that the issue is more to do with ability/aptitude levels. After all, selection was far tougher in previous times, as the requirement for new pilots was far lower. And the gradual step up from a Baron to a classic 4-crew 707 was slower and more straightforward than from a DA42 to the right seat of an A321.

In addition to selection, Hamble/OATS/AST followed the CAP509 course in those days whereas if you look at the syllabus content for integrated training these days, there seems to be absolutely minimal time available for teaching general handling and basic attitude control up to first solo followed by endless time spent burning holes in the sky on solo cross-country sorties at higher than necessary altitudes using GPS in preference to DR over largely featureless terrain in places far, far away.
The CPL testing system has changed under JAA and EASA as well - exams are not conducted by salaried CAA staff examiners any longer but usually by school FE(CPL)'s or those contracted by the training provider who must surely have a vested interest in a reasonably high pass rate with a view to future work, safe in the knowledge that the candidate is unlikely to operate single-pilot in the real world, has an IR to complete followed by MCC/JOC and TR...i.e. plenty more nets to catch out the weak. Except, it doesn't seem to happen unless the student is seriously inept or is identified late on as suffering from a disqualifying issue such as a psychological disorder. Perhaps I'm doing an injustice to checking and examining standards today, but there does seem to be a deterioration in the quality of cadets.

[Max Angle]

Maybe I'm a rare example of a BA pilot who is completely underwhelmed by the monitored approach concept,

You are not alone!

[RAT 5]

And not lets even start a conversation about PNF activating the TR's. OMG. How to reinvent the wheel and make it square.

[noflynomore]

Originally Posted by TangoAlphad

So if I may ask, in BA land, at what point does PF hand over to PM to carry out the landing..? Is there a typical point?

PF (who was actually PNF throughout the flight, having only become PF before TOD but after he conducted the approach and landing briefing hands over to PL (landing) at DH/MDA ie minimums at latest, but at any reasonable stage before that once landing checks are complete if visual.
Is that about right?
It sounds odd but it really works. It annoys the **** out of prima donnae who feel diminished if they cannot fly their own approaches and land from them too ans is arguably - perfectly arguably, not "necessary" at all in good visual conditions.
It is, however, a seriously advantageous way of conducting approaches to minima in that the PF never lets his scan go and if the PL sees nowt he calls "Go Around" which the PF does without breaking his scan. A vast improvement on the usual method.
The main beef against it is that it is not really necessary the rest of the time. Some companies take the view that SOPs should be just that, SOPs and to change them according to weather conditions ( arguably a fallible judgement call) is not best SOP. Others can choose between monitored approaches and conventional ones according to their judgement.
Multi pilot minded crews have no problem with any of this but there are always some who think they know better than company SOPs and want to do it differently to the way they are expected to.
Rien plus ca change.
Even some in BA.