Originally Posted by
shared reality
Well said! In my airline (European legacy), pilots must be equally proficient in all levels of automation, including basic manual, and we are encouraged to practice manual, raw data flying regularly, when conditions permit. As a trainer, I find this to be an excellent way to hone skills on a regular basis, which may save your life one day.
This regular practice (WHEN CONDITIONS PERMIT), clearly shows in the simulator, where most of my colleagues display very good handling skills on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, many airlines around do not adhere to this, and having been on quite a few voluntary leave of absence over the years with other operators, I have seen the effects of so called aviators, who were plainly scared of disconnecting the automatics anywhere but fully configured at a 1000 ft in visual conditions.... Some of them so out of touch with flying an airplane that I would not dare to visit the toilet in cruise.
Rgds,
Originally Posted by
Check Airman
Seems having fun at work isn’t cool. I suppose I won’t be one of the cool kids then.
I think it's all because someone figured out that paying low-experience pilots low wages and imposing use of automation as company policy, is a viable and statistically safe business model. The industry is only now waking up to the idea that this is actually creating unsafe pilots who do not trust in their own abilities. If normal flying becomes a source of unease, what can be expected in an emergency? It's a fact that company culture must change at a lot of airlines, but what frightens me is how individual pilots can be okay with these minimal hand-flying policies and, worse, actually actively defend them.
Originally Posted by
Centaurus
In the 1980's and earlier I flew 737-200's around the Western, Central and South Pacific region. Most of the small airline (three 737-200 and two 727-100) 35 pilots were former Royal Australian Air Force. All the Boeings had FD 108 flight directors and there were no autothrottles and no EFIS. Manual flying in the climb to 10,000 ft and from 10,000 ft down was the norm and as far as I remember there was only one particular captain who swore by the FD and used it as much as he could. Navigation was by Omega in the early years followed by our first INS. All instrument let downs at the remote Pacific islands were NDB with the occasional VOR and ILS at the larger islands like Guam. In short, the standard of instrument flying was first class and there were no reports of pilots losing the plot in cloud or night IMC. And believe me there were some seriously black nights at these destinations.
Then in 1989 I went to England for a flying job also on the 737-200 and was given an instrument rating test in a 737-200 simulator at Gatwick as part of the British ATPL award, the IRE being a company man himself being tested for his IRE certification by a British CAA senior examiner occupying the 4th seat in the simulator. The senior examiner silently observed the two hour session. I found out later he was the Head Examiner of the CAA. In my opinion and being used to the outsoken and demanding Australian check captains in my former airline, he was a thorough English gentleman. The FD 108 left a lot to be desired and I elected to conduct the instrument approaches (ADF/VOR/ILS) manually flown raw data. After all I had been doing that sort of thing most of my flying career both military and civil.
The test was successful thank goodness as I felt a bit nervous knowing the top CAA gun was watching. The de-briefing finished and paper work signed, the CAA Examiner quietly said "That was OK, but you should try and use the flight director rather than fly raw data. I was tempted to say I found the Collins FD 108 a pain in the neck and that IMHO it added to my workload. But I listened to that tiny voice in my mind and thanked him politely assuring him I would use the FD more in the future. But the CAA man was a wise old bird and guessed I couldn't change my views at my relatively advnced years. We shook hands and went our separate ways. His to his big mahogany desk and me back to a real 737.
Later when flying EFIS 737's I could see the superb accuracy of the flight director system and used it but only to keep in practice at using it - not that I thought I needed it to complete a flight. That was in another era of course... .
Originally Posted by
Bergerie1
When I was a training captain in a big airline back in the 1980s, there was a move to 'streamline' simulator exercises. One of the items it was suggested we should remove was the NDB approach on three engines in a cross wind. Why, we were asked, should this be retained in the six-monthly refresher training cycle when all the airports to which we operated our 747s were equipped with ILS? We kept this exercise in for two reasons; (1) some alternate airfields were equipped with NDBs (no VORs or ILS) and in the event of a diversion to one of these it was likely the reason for the diversion might be some kind of technical problem. (2) Flying an NDB only approach with an outboard engine failed and in a cross wind was as good a test of handflying ability as you were likely to find.
So I am with you Centaurus.
Wow! Thank you both for sharing
Originally Posted by
Uplinker
The conductor of an orchestra does not play the actual instruments, yet coordinates and produces an amazing piece of music.
Flying a large passenger jet is like conducting an orchestra and not the same as flying say, a Pitts special or a Tigermoth. In those smaller aircraft the very point of them is to hand fly. In the larger passenger jet the purpose is to get your passengers from A to B as smoothly, professionally and as efficiently as possible.
You say you use SatNav when making deliveries, which is similar to us using the FMGCS to conduct a passenger flight.
I started on very basic turbo props with no automatics at all which was fine, but nowadays my flying enjoyment (of large passenger jets) is more as a conductor. It is immensely satisfying to be up in the atmosphere in my shirt sleeves operating a large modern jet across continents through mostly key presses and knob twiddling. It's more about strategy and I don't feel the need to hand fly for hours on end.
BUT if ATC brings me in above the glide slope, I find the easiest thing is to drop the automatics and hand fly. And I still really enjoy hand flying a turbulent crosswind approach, flare and landing. It is great fun and gives me a strong sense of satisfaction.
.
Heheh nice try, but I think a better comparison to the GPS/No-GPS drive would be an RNAV approach vs. a VOR one. After all, SatNav tells you when/where to turn, it doesn't help drive your car.
That being said, I can't fault anyone for loving what they love. If somebody's heart is with the symphony of knobs, then that's where it is. But keep in mind that this conductor is expected to play, at a moment's notice, a flaming violin when the orchestra catches fire, while at the same time playing the cello with his other hand because the cellist just passed out. And sing.
I'm glad you agree that there are situations in which the most appropriate level of automation is none and that the *easiest* thing to do is to drop everything and hand fly. Unlike what some posters are saying, automation can actually mean MORE workload. There was a disappeared thread around here about how to fly a particular VOR approach on the A320 I believe, and all the posts were full of programming altitude constraints and programming this and programming that.
Originally Posted by
vilas
Life always doesn't give pleasant options. It will be very Utopian to imagine that most people earn a living doing what they like. Earning a living is not an option. A380 Capt doesn't enjoy driving a bus but they are doing it now. If you happen to earn a living doing what you like it's a bonus. Besides one likes flying is no guarantee of anyone's professional competence. There are pilots who love flying but are mediocre and there are pilots who were basically attracted to it because they had money to become one and considered the salary of airline pilot as a good investment. The basic education with which one becomes a pilot there is no other field to make much more money. The thread is about acquiring and maintaining unassisted skills so let's not add philosophy to it.
There most definitely are other fields in which you can make more money. In Canada, one can make more money driving a lorry or a limousine. Or selling drugs. I don't know what it's like in Europe anymore, but I'm sure there's options.
I don't buy the argument that people will just take that money and invest it in such a fickle profession. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's terrible decision making. There must be some love, otherwise I really don't see why someone would bother. As someone who has gone to flight school, you know how much money it costs. That same money can get you 2 keys of cocaine, which you will see a quick return on, I promise you. Or you can open a small business and have cushion money left for your first months. In any case, you will definitely see a faster and more certain return on investment. All the money in the world could never have convinced me to go sailing in the sky if I didn't deeply love flying. The sacrifices, the uncertainty, the danger in some cases...Totally not worth it if your heart isn't in it.