Originally Posted by
PilotLZ
gearlever, it sounds like in your company the PM sets up the FCU without command from the PF when the PF is flying manually? This actually makes a lot of sense.
It does make sense (but it's forbidden, because it is written "on PF request")
And can the PF set his own FCU at your airline ?
There is a table in Operational philosophy, tasksharing rules, FCU/AFS, which clearly states "NO" in my FCTM. I also have a generic airbus one that is a bit older (uses PNF, different arrangement of content) but has the exact same answer.
Originally Posted by
Check Airman
This thread is eye opening. I had no idea that there were airlines that made the PM wait for the PF to set the FCU. What’s the logic behind that?
Either they want the same logic whether the PF decides a new target or ATC asks for a new target. I worked at airbus for a bit and they have this sort of reasoning, that things should be done as identically as possible even in situations that are different.
I feel like I don't fully understand the situation here.
Does this little rule ("NO" in the specific page of the FCTM) apply to all airlines or do some airlines have a modified version where pilots have a tiny bit more of freedom ?
Or, do some pilots routinely make this very little violation to touch a knob when they normally couldn't (not ordered to do so)
Originally Posted by
pineteam
Not sure if your FCTM is different but in manual flights on A320, the PF can also set his own EFIS except FD p/b on top of AP and A/THR.
Same question, do you have a different FCTM than ours ?
Originally Posted by
Tee Emm
Decades ago the so called "Silent Cockpit" policy was introduced to cut down on unnecessary and often distracting chatter between the two pilots during operations below 10,000 ft. But nature abhors a vacuum and now we have situations where the golden silence below 10,000 feet is filled with company mandated SOP calls as mode changes occur. The fact that most pilots have good eye sight and can see mode changes on annunciator systems is now seen as not enough. You have to tell the other pilot what you are seeing. Perhaps the next future design feature in cockpits is to have automatic loud speaker announcements at each mode change to reduce the workload associated with verbal call-outs by pilots..
Now this is becoming hilarious
The same kind of comments could be made about the radio altimeter auto callout. After years of flaring on the "30" callout or just after (or even on the "20"), maybe if one day the callout does not work it will be a disturbance and the flare could be late ? When I worked at airbus, I saw at least one report in which the pilot wrote the callout was missing and it was the main reason why they flared late and landed hard.
Originally Posted by
Uplinker
Hand flying in a Boeing/Airbus does increase workload for both PF and PM. More talking is required, and PM has to do part of PF's job as well as their own, since PF is not supposed to make their own selections. PM also needs to monitor PF much more closely when PF is hand-flying, which takes up a lot of PM's capacity.
Is it really required or just a rule that could be changed ?
Hand flying should be encouraged by companies, it makes a lot of sense for them to keep our skills and scans sharp. But they should also specify the conditions and situations where hand flying would be appropriate, so as not to introduce extra problems or reduce safety or compromise the commercial parameters of the flight.
If you only train your manual flying when conditions are easiest, will you really be ready for the day you will have an AP failure + any condition less than ideal ? Be it weather, traffic, or any other, but if you have an AP failure that will be due to some technical problems so workload would be at least high. I'm not saying pilots should only train in unduly hard conditions (at some time in the past, it used to be done, instructors simulated failures with pax on board to train a newbie like me), but restricting to easy conditions is maybe not completely enough, you could at least go to average conditions with a medium workload.
Just imagine talking to a passenger, what is more reassuring ?
- If the conditions are all easy, I decide fly the plane manually, but if there is a bit more workload I prefer not to.
- In normal conditions I usually fly manually