Auto pilot use

[CONVAIR]

Do any airlines/regulatory authorities have rules mandating auto pilot use and limiting hand flying. The question has arisen out of an event of the PF hand flying and not having time to monitor systems, which had a failure, really two failures, as the system failed as well as the warning that the system had failed. PNF was not sharp. Teh thought is that the auto pilot very rarely fails, the second autopilot fails even more rarely, and maintaining and developing hand flying skills should be done in the sim and not with 100 - 400+ pax down the back.

[BlueEagle]

From my experience, talking about the B737 and upwards and similar types, the teaching has always been that if a problem occurs then select the auto-pilot 'in' so that you can sit back and properly assess the problem(s) and make the correct decisions.
Very few people can do two things at once so the idea that if things go wrong you should hand fly is not, in my opinion, a good one, unless the nature of the failure prevents the use of autopilots.
Possible exceptions would be an engine failure at or just after V1, then I would expect the PF to hand fly until the clean up was complete but even then selecting an auto-pilot 'in' at a safe height, (say 500'), would not necessarily be a bad move.

In todays two crew environment with highly sophisticated automation on the flight deck I personally believe it would be foolhardy not to use all the systems available to your advantage.

[Captain Stable]

I agree almost entirely with BlueEagle.

When the A/P is engaged, the PF monitors the autosystems, and the PNF gets on with his other tasks - getting the weather, updating the plog, talking to company or handling agents at destination, checking cabin crew are happy, talking to the SLF, etc. etc.

When PF hand flies, PNF has to have almost all his attention on monitoring the PF, and has to be listening to ATC. Other jobs threfore do not get done, possibly being postponed until they are urgent, and PNF is then working his socks off getting everything done, and is under stress. This is not a good idea. Stressed pilots make mistakes.

In a busy, complex TMA such as London, Paris, and many others around the world, hand flying is a luxury that we cannot afford.

Elsewhere, such as a simple procedure into a quieter airfield, there is nothing to stop the PF briefing the PNF on his intentions, asking if he minds the later stages being hand flown, and keeping his handflying skills brushed up.

In that last paragraph there are two very important points. One is to maintain CRM - ask the other guy if he minds and ask him in a manner that allows him to say no. The other is that it is important to keep your handflying skills maintained. Sod's Law dictates that if you let them get rusty, you will get an A/P fault that you can't handle. Part of being professional is maintaining ALL our skills.

Lastly, if a F/O as PNF is getting behind the game, he needs to be encouraged to speak up and ask for the A/P to be re-engaged. So the PF skipper needs also to maintain a monitoring watch on his F/O. This is more difficult when handflying, and needs more effort. Such effort is a necessary part of command.

[411A]

Capn S,

Disagree almost entirely with your ideas. However my comments come from flying 3/4 engine heavy jets, with a Flight Engineer.

Have never ever asked a First Officer if he minded if I hand flew the aeroplane, just disconnected the a/p and got on with the job.

Likewise, have never had a First Officer ask me if I minded if he disconnected the a/p and decided to hand fly, and would not expect him to do so.

In addition, have had First Officers hand fly the aeroplane in the London TMA (as well as other very busy locations), and have had absolutely no problems whatsoever. This included line training new First officers on the equipment.
Having said this, most of these folks decided to leave the a/p engaged, on most occasions.

Low visibility approaches are, of course, a horse of a different color.

Old-fashioned ideas?
Others may think so, but they served me well for over thirty years.

[Captain Stable]

411A, it neither surprises nor dismays me that you disagree with me - merely confirms my conviction that I have it right. :rolleyes:

[GlueBall]

And just for the record, Captain Stable, after eight hours in cruise on autopilot, I deliberately hand fly the machine from 10,000 feet agl all the way unto the pavement...just for the challenge! Doesn't matter whether it's into ORD or into DXB. And when it's my copilot's leg, he/she may do likewise. :eek:

[BlueEagle]

DXB perhaps but handfly into ORD?

Last time I was there ORD was a very busy place and the workload on the PNF was high. It increases that workload considerably if the PF insists on handflying thus leaving all the MCP changes to the PNF just to add to his list of jobs, configuration changes, frequency changes, RT, monitoring the PF and lookout in a busy TMA etc. etc.

Do you carry a third crewmember GlueBall?

[411A]

Hmmm, suspect a few here would not be able to past muster in a few companies....can't hand fly and keep the ship running normally?...out the door with a few folks.

Once noticed a fellow who tried to keep the a/p engaged all the time in the sim as well...failed and, color him gone.
Pronto.

[BlueEagle]

It is not a case of what one can or cannot do it is simply a case of whatever is safest! and you with your age and experience should know better!;) But you always did enjoy a good wind-up!

[GlueBall]

From the responses it appears that some folks would be at the edge of an emergency without at least one working autopilot...going into ORD, LHR, CDG.... :{

[BigHairyBum]

When are people going to stop being macho about hand flying.

Most of you with a reasonable amount of flying/airline experience should be able to recognise when your workload is increasing.

When this starts to happen ask yourself if it wise to continue with this ritual because your company says you can, or if assigning mundane tasks to the autopilot so you can pull your weight on the flight deck and helping your colleague is a better idea.

I personally love disconnecting the automatics and polling around the sky as "raw" as possible. I feel enormous satisfaction in accurate raw data manual flying.

But,

There is a time and a place to do this which is not easy to define through sops. Beacause sops are usually constructed in a nice air conditioned office on the ground and normally written as a policy they can only cover so many situations. The rest is airmanship.

My instinct has been used on many occasions when deciding on when to engage and disengage automatics.

The auto pilot was designed to help us. It is one of many tools of our trade and that is how it should be treated.

[411A]

Blue Eagle,

Ah, but sometimes it is whether the act of hand flying is relevant.

Case in point.
South asian airline with Lockheed TriStar equipment, and a newly joining Captain from the middle east...from an airline who used the a/p for autolands as normal ops.

OK, no problem....until this chap had to fly a non-precision approach...dark and dirty night, auto-throttle inop.
Co-pilot reported to flight ops that he ....'did not want to fly with this guy ever as three stall warnings on final were quite enough...thanks.'

IF the practice is not exercised...the ability goes away...very rapidly.:ooh:

[Burger Thing]

During my Type Rating course on the 737 I remember to have seen a few training videos. ( think produced by United and American). One was dealing with the crash of the Birgen Air 757 a few years back. Apparently one airline in the States gave the same scenario 50 sets of crew in their simulator. None of them crashed. The training captain on that video mentioned, that the lack of hand-flying skills contributed to this accident because it seemed that in Europe a slightly different approach to commercial flying is practised than in the States: AP most of the time, especially in emergencies. Which of course could be a safe option, but could you put also outside the loop. The particular training captain encouraged his crew to hand fly the bird below 10000ft, if weather permits.

A collegue of mine was on a jumpseat of a Fed-Ex (i believe) DC-10 into New York a few moons back. He told me: all handflown. No AP ;) And silky smooth.
:ok:

[PA-28-180]

I'm gonna jump in here and agree with BurgerThing and 411A. It seems many carriers in this region routinely ONLY hand fly the aircraft below 1000 AGL. Now, on a 14 hour trans-pac flight, how much time is actually spent hand flying the jet? I have to agree with 411A's statement in particular-it really does seem a case of use it or lose it...IMHO!
It's not a case of being macho, its a case of keeping skills sharp! :cool:

[Captain Stable]

I refer the honourable readers to the reply I made a few days ago.

I stated that it was incumbent upon a professional pilot to keep all his skills up to date. Handflying is an important skill, and I have never heard anyone say "Don't worry - always let the automatics do it". Anyone who did would be an idiot, IMHO. Conversely, anyone who only hand flies is a fool, and I have seen quite a few pilots who could not or would not keep their skills on the automatics (FMCS settings etc.) up to date, and had no idea how to make their life easier when the workload was high.

However, as far as practising handflying, there is a time and a place to do this. Going into a busy TMA is, quite simply, not it. My personal opinion is that anyone who does so is eroding the borders of safety. Anyone who does so without consulting his colleague on the flight deck is rude and inconsiderate, risks further stress upon the other member of the flight deck crew, risks good working relationships and therefore further erodes safety.

[Rananim]

My vote goes with 411.Too much reliance on automation these days.You never know when you're going to have to make a manual approach or a no-gyro or something.If you're flying raw data and the other guy selects LNAV or APP and looks all quizzical when nothing happens,then you know for sure that over-reliance on automation is not a good thing.
"Mind if I hand-fly it?" Never heard of that one.Thats what pilots do.Bit like asking "Mind if I do my job?"

[BlueEagle]

Let us all be quite clear here. No one is advocating no hand flying, no one says that one day you won't need it if the automatics fail, (despite massive system redundancy on most modern aircraft), no one says that practise isn't necessary, in fact whether or not one should maintain hand flying practise is a question that, despite not having been raised, is getting plenty of answers here!

The question is whether or not the PF should dump the automatics in a busy TMA to hand fly and thus load up his PNF and thereby reduce safety margins and that is all.

Whether or not one asks/discusses with/tells the PNF that one is about to disconnect the automatics depends on the level of CRM in that company and just how sloppy or otherwise their flight deck procedures are.

[Captain Stable]

No, Rananim, it is not equivalent to asking "Mind if I do my job?".

It is equivalent to "Mind if I suddenly unnecessarily increase your workload just as you were getting busy?"

[Crossunder]

Totally agree with captain stable! Practising hand flying is done at times of low workload and good weather conditions. Also, how hard can it be to hand fly a modern passenger transport... Sounds like some are afraid to suddenly suffer some sort of instant amnesia the moment they engage the AP? WIthout automation there wouldn't be enough room in the skies for the present traffick density, and overreliance on automation is usually some poor sod that didn't take the time to read the manual - and practice doing his job. Wasn't too long ago some real hands-on fellas collided mid-air because they didn't trust the automation.

[Jetstream Rider]

Captain Stable and Crossunder - while I mostly agree with you, if we only practice hand flying in good weather we are missing out on some of the important bits of practice. On my previous aircraft (small base) I was known as someone who liked hand flying (only if it was safe to do so and the Captain wasn't against the idea). Because of this and my acceptance of hand flying from the other seat, some Captains felt happy to hand fly with me and if I flew a manual approach would say 'about time I had a go' or similar on the next one. All well and good, except that some of the hand flying was not quite up to scratch at times and after a couple of slightly dodgy approaches (visual at night, different Captains) I decided that it was better to practice in a variety of conditions. Obviously I would not fly a Cat2 approach to minimums in manual, but we do need to practice in cloud as it is different and can sometimes be quite disorientating even with experienced crews. It is too easy to sneak a peek in good weather and then we are cheating ourselves - and I have seen it happen so many times.

My own flying improved drastically (ie capacity increase and smoother) after practising no flight director approaches. In fact, when I first started and used the automatics most of the time, I was dissappointed at my lack of capacity when I took them out. Now I practice a lot more and I am a better pilot for it.

Busy TMA's are another place to practice - if we do not have the capacity (from either seat) to do it then we are lacking essential skills.

One Captain I flew with, complained after 2 manual departures with me flying and asked me to put in the autopilot - I did to preserve CRM, but his reasoning was that he had 'had enough for today' total hands on time was about 12 minutes (for the day) and I must admit that scared me.

Emergencies - different matter. We should do whatever we need to maintain capacity and assure a safe outcome. The autopilot is not always your best friend in that situation though as I discovered in the sim. Most of the time - I would put it in, but be prepared to take it out and hand fly if it would be beneficial, and practice in a variety of conditions makes your capacity much bigger.

Crossunder - Wasn't so long ago that a large aircraft hit a hill because the pilots were heads in dealing with the automatics instead of getting on with flying the aeroplane. Middle road is what we need, not extremes like Mr 411A.

[Ralph Cramden]

My vote goes to 411A and Burger.
Capt. Stable... why would the PNF have to monitor the PF any more when he is hand flying than when he is not? With EFIS you don't even have to scan as we did in the days of round dials. I am prepared to hand fly anywhere any time. Whether I chose to in any given circumstance is another matter. IMHO automation has increased the workload in many cases. This discussion seems to be split on continental lines.

[HugMonster]

why would the PNF have to monitor the PF any more when he is hand flying than when he is not?Does it really have to be spelled out for you that much? I guess it does. :rolleyes:

When the automatics are engaged, they fly the aircraft. PF monitors the automatics. When PF is flying, he needs to be monitored. The only person on a 2-crew flight deck to do that is the PNF.

It appears to me that, across the pond in the former colonies, the culture is much more one in which the Captain is God, and woe betide any FO who gets uppity and wants to monitor what the skipper is doing.

In Europe, we have realised that, in order to ensure flight safety, a rather more modern concept of crew interaction is needed - i.e., one which takes into account the physiology and psychology of human interaction. To this end, it is understood that the flight crew are a team. It is not a regimental officer's mess, where decisions get handed down from on high, and in which you don't question your orders.

Pilots make mistakes, whichever side they're sitting on. Part of the other guy's job is to trap those mistakes. To this end, crew interaction is needed. This entails CRM. Good CRM implies that you don't bog the other guy down with needless extra work just when he's at his busiest just because you fancy playing.

Ralph, if you really think that automation has increased the workload, then you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

[Right Way Up]

Maybe we should also instruct the PNF to cut an engine at V1 every now and again, so we don't lose those skills as well.;)

[Ralph Cramden]

My, my, you do get wound up over there don't you. Well I have my asbesyos suit on so fire away. You really should lighten up a little. This is a serious issue and requires serious debate.

The PNF should monitor the PF at all times and vis versa. Good CRM requires it. I refer you to the Eastern accident where the good old automation flew them into the Everglades.

I stand by my contention that automation increases workload in many cases. There is a vast body of scientfic literature out there to support this view. You might want to read the accident reports on the British Midlands 737 incident and AA Cali to see just how far down the garden path automation can lead you.

Automation is just another club in your bag; to be used when appropriate and discarded when not.

[Right Way Up]

The Captain on the Brit Midland 737 manually flew the aircraft after the engine failure (see official report)

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_control/documents/contentservertemplate/dft_index.hcst?n=5236&l=4

and the Eastern accident occurred because nobody looked after the shop, during troubleshooting. (with four people on the flightdeck!)

[411A]

Ah yes, Cali and AA, an interesting study of how not to operate, and expect to survive.

Using automation, the crew decides to alter the approach sequence at the last minute, inserts a waypoint which they think is correct (but the database proves 'em wrong), ignores very basic raw data information, and descends into a hill, with go-around thrust selected/speed brakes extended.

Absolutely no planning or forethought whatsoever.

Autopilot use is fine, and on more modern types is highly recommended for ease of operation, but you gotta remember...garbage in, garbage out with the FMS/FMC.

Far too many 'new generation' guys expect the machine to never fail/always be correct.

Sadly, is does fail...and you have to pay attention.

[Captain Stable]

AA Cali - A striking example of how important it is to keep all your skills brushed up - especially those to do with the complexities (on occasions) of the automatics. Unless you understand how to use them, and use them properly, they will rise up and bite you.

They are tools, to be used to an end. If they don't perform the task required, dump them. If they lighten the load at a time when there is much to do and a short time in which to do it, then use them. Don't scorn them because of some outdated idea that only wusses fly on A/P, and "in the old days we used to hand-fly 200 tons of aircraft through hurricanes with total blackout on the ground and land on a 60 ft runway in less than zero/zero visibility - THAT was flying, son!"

I'm not quite sure why Eastern came up - that was nothing to do with hand-flying.

In the case of the BM 737, the first thing the skipper did was to disconnect the autopilot. He therefore occupied himself unnecessarily with handflying instead of analysing the problem and solving it. He was far less able, therefore, to carry out a full scan of the engine instruments. Who knows - he might actually have spotted the vibration indicator going off the clock...

[OZZY AIRBORNE]

Have to side with Blue Eagle and Capt. Stable on this one. Having watched from the jumpseat as a captain handflew the aircraft from cruise alttitude to landing, going into LHR, I was struck by two things. Firstly the accuracy of heading, speed and altitude was way below autopilot standards, and secondly the PNF was out of the loop for large parts of the approach, as his arms flew around the cockpit setting up headings,v/s, new radio frequencies etc.
This will become an ever increasing problem in the future as the pilots who were brought up with no flight directors, and Mickey Mouse autopilots retire,coupled with more and better automatics, which further errode flying skills.
The problem is exacerbated when the airline only flies wide-body long haul aircraft. The copilot only gets one leg in three, if he is lucky, and problems usually occur in the last two hundred feet, when it comes to planting the thing on the ground.

[Rananim]

Manual flying without F/D in ALL types of airspace(if we can do it in ORD and DFW,you can do it in LHR for sure) should be practised periodically.Workload may well increase for the PNF but it keeps the mind sharp and is not a bad thing.
There's a new breed of pilot who is actually afraid to take out the automatics and practise these essential skills.The same thing goes for non-precision approaches.Once every 6 months in the sim aint enough.And then when the ILS isnt working,you're left out to dry.Look at the KAL crash at Guam.Next time dont take the vectors the long way round for the ILS,go for the straight-in and shoot an NDB or VOR approach.One more for the memory bank and will keep you in good stead.Its called experience.
Having said that,automation is a great tool and should be used 95% of the time in busy airspace.

[OZZY AIRBORNE]

I totally agree with Rananim that flying skills have to be practised to maintain a level of competency, but I still maintain that ultra busy TMA's like LHR and ORD are the wrong venues for practise. Why pile on the workload when you should be keeping a close eye on conflicting traffic and the safe profile of the aircraft? It goes double for busy American fields like ORD, LAX,JFK and SFO, where runway changes seem to happen at the last minute, and controllers often make no allowance for track miles to run to touchdown when giving clearances, putting the onus on the pilot to comply or go around .

[safetypee]

Look at the autopilot issue from a slightly different perspective. What were the expectations of the manufacturer and what now is allowed by the certification authority with respect to autopilot use?
Auto pilot use is mandated for most Cat 2 / 3 operations; for these, a specific design of autopilot is used, these systems do not or must not fail (at least not very often). Some RNP operations require autopilot use to achieve the required navigation accuracy. For all other operations most civil aviation authorities accept that pilots can achieve an acceptable flying standard i.e. safe. It is accept that autopilots will reduce workload, fatigue, etc. But when to use the autos is open to pilot judgement (a skill) and operator policy. The assumption is that either with of without autos the overall operation remains safe.
The semantics or choice of words in previous posts is of concern. When people talk about monitoring an autopilot they should mean monitor the input / output of the system, thus monitor the flight path of the aircraft. Did everyone mean this? It is an old adage that the NFP should monitor the FD during manual flight (older designs of FDs failed often), but the important issue was to monitor what the aircraft is doing – the flight path – how many aircraft hit the hillside with the crosshairs centred? This latter point is of direct relevance to NFPs of HUD drivers. An autopilot does not have a bad day, HUDs should not, but pilots often do. How does the NFP check how the pilot flying the HUD is performing? - Monitor the raw data / aircraft flight path.
Autopilots are designed with differing aims and with varying standards of reliability. Some fail op autos (Cat3b) may only be fail passive in the cruise, thus a different standard of monitoring (workload) will apply. Although the new big jets may have autopilots designed to handle emergency flight situations (engine out), many lesser systems were not. In accident reports it is often these systems that have caught out the crew. What better way of getting the feel of the aircraft by hand flying after an engine failure; pitch trim feel is the feed back for airspeed, similarly, (secondary) so are the roll and yaw forces a cue to what the aircraft is doing. Monitoring is required during a V2 climb, but the urgent actions take place at a predetermined safe point; engine shut down should only require one confirmatory check from PF that the PNF has the correct engine. The subsequent actions are just that, subsequent to the shut down and in a time / priority scale conducive to monitoring safe flight. N.B. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Review and monitor (Agitae), in that order. NFP monitors the aviation, navigation, and participates in comms (in other actions take place inter-crew and external).
If a PF or operator believes that a NFP has to spend most of his time monitoring the PF or making MCP selections then there could be a misunderstanding of assumptions made during design and certification of that aircraft. This disparity may imply that the licensing standard of the crew is insufficient for that type of operation, that the individual is ‘just not sharp’, that there is a lack of trust between crewmembers (CRM / human factors), or that the design of SOPs do not match those intended by the manufacturer.
One of the communication gaps in our industry is between what one part of an authority has certificated (manufacture’s design) and what the other part of the authority approves for operation. I agree with the professionals in our industry that the lack of skill (in whatever form) is a threat to the very good safety record that we enjoy; but if we are unhappy about a particular skill then raise the issue within your operation, or with your authority. Unless these concerns are aired formally then any differences in the assumptions made during design and about operating aircraft will go unchallenged, and if so, then there could be a real risk to safety.

[robmac]

Now where were we......
400 hour pilot, building hours, flying rubber dog sh1t out of nowhereville in a twin piston cessna.

Piston, turbo, need to be babied, full manual, six levers (rigged not to sit flush at the same settings) and two cowl flap levers (in guaranteed to induce dis-orientation place).

Autopilot last serviced in 1977, unusual personality, has mind of its own...best used only in VMC, so you can catch it when it disconnects at an inappropriate moment...

Co-pilot....absent again...

Paper charts, dim lights, no GPS, only one operational VOR, no DME, AI sits 2 deg off level when wings level, need to remember that in IMC to avoid constant course corrections

IMC, no radar (of any sort), unintelligable ATC, rain (lots of it) popping circuit breakers, try to sort the problem from memory while keeping the A/C right way up, left bus bar disconnects again dammit !!!, I wish those engineers would fix the 30 year old electrics properly, fuel and engine guages not working now...start doing complex fuel calculations in head...

Start humming... three wheels on my wagon......:\


Sorry, just a brief foray in to the world of the low hours time building pilot, now that i am back in big boy reality land, please tell me that one about 21st century automated multi crewed jets being dangerous to hand fly ??

[BlueEagle]

So then Robmac A totally unairworthy aircraft in IMC, all the faults well known to you and yet you continued, (hours building is NO excuse), very impressive, I think not!

The possible 'danger' of hand flying in today's more complicated machinery in very busy controlled airspace is that you are deliberately eroding the safety margins by not taking full advantage of all the assistance offered to you, a bit like wearing a life jacket but not bothering to inflate it.

One can imagine the manufactures response after an accident; "Had the pilot(s) taken advantage of all the flying aids offered within the aircraft this accident need not have happened", one can then imagine the insurers response!

Hopefully your post was 'tongue in cheek'?

[robmac]

Well spotted Blue Eagle.....

However, I guess you have never had the misfortune to hire some of the cr#p which is out there.....and believe me it is.

Of course it is always "airworthy" upon departure, and I kid you not, my little picture painted there is actually a conglomerate of problems that I have had to deal with on "airworthy" aircraft rented to me by highly recommended organisations.

I actually ended up giving up and buying my own aircraft after trying lots of different places and getting tired of these money grabbing, maintenance averse fuc8wits trying to kill me.

Of course if I was to learn at the hands of a high tech, fast track, money no object airline programme, and then find myself in the right seat of a money no object aircraft with everything but the flying done by some other flunkey, I wouldn't have had to put up with it would I.

My point is that there are an awful lot of spoiled people out there..

Anyway Eagle, I had you down for a pompous a55, but your last line saved you ;)

Sh1t!!! I just noticed where you are from, and had to comment further. The aircraft I purchased was a VH with a brand new annual and "400 hour" Hawker re-mans. I had to do US30K work on it before it was safe to put on the N register.

Not only was much of the maintenance unsafe, some of it was actually highly illegal......and what did the CASA cartel have to say about it, not too much, just some whingeing pom who doesn't know the score, she'll be right mate...

Most frightening thing of all, it used to be an RPT aircraft !!!

So my friend from the land of OZ, I am sure with your experience and standing in the OZ aviation community, theres a lot of safety issues to get cracking with at home.:*

[Dale Harris]

"Unsafe? Highly Illegal?" That is dependent upon whose standards you measure it by. Some standard practices in some countries are illegal in others. And judging an entire industry on one example is just a little bit harsh, don't you think?

[robmac]

Dale,

Measured by CASA standards !!, how about drilling a hole in the casing of the prop governor and putting an non-designed screw in order to keep the prop from feathering inadvertently due to low oil pressures inside the casing.....just one example, I have five more on the same aircraft...and a few more on others I have flown.

The drilled hole by the way, rendered the casing completely unfit for re-manufacture.

[Maximum]

robmac,

not only have you wandered way off topic, but you really are sounding like a self-appointed hero.:yuk:

[S. Dumont]

Indeed very good points were posted in this topic.

I am writing an article about Loss of Flight Proficiency in Automated Cockpits to be presented in a national seminar of aeronautical sciences colleges in my country and this topic was very useful with the points cited.

Maybe you can give me some help in some points.

- How are autopilots listed on today's commercial airplanes MELs (Minimum Equipment List)? For example, if a 737 has all autopilots INOP, can it be dispatched? How about the A320?

- What is your company SOP regarding autopilot use? Is its use mandatory through all flight phases or is it based on pilot's discretion?

That would be it for now. Thanks a lot.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Look again at Rananim's post at the bottom of the previous page.

The second paragraph is, I feel, the most important point made this discussion.

There's a new breed of pilot who is actually afraid to take out the automatics and practise these essential skills.The same thing goes for non-precision approaches.Once every 6 months in the sim aint enough.And then when the ILS isnt working,you're left out to dry. Look at the KAL crash at Guam.Next time dont take the vectors the long way round for the ILS,go for the straight-in and shoot an NDB or VOR approach.One more for the memory bank and will keep you in good stead.Its called experience.
Having said that, automation is a great tool and should be used 95% of the time in busy airspace.

SOP's, peer pressure and, especially, the tribal culture of particular types, fleets, bases or companies themselves conspire to create this situation. It was always strange to me when effo's were pleased and a little awed when it was hinted a little hand flying perfectly suited the next approach. If anything the thought of manually flying a SID seemed even more daunting. Most of all, no autothrottle seemed to be a relatively common line occurence that caused eyes to roll to the heavens.

Significantly Ops manuals always seem to have a catch all paragraph permitting manual flying as when, Etc. However there can be a culture where this is ignored for the majority of the time. We then find folks uncharacteristically and at, perhaps inopportune, times throwing away both A/P and FD because, 'they're due in the sim soon.' :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

Rob

[411A]

Towers,

Very good points, well said.

Those companies who demand constant autopilot use are, in my opinion, a threat to aviation safety, and to the passengers which they carry.

Manual flying skills absolutely need to be properly maintained, and this positively includes busy TMA's.
IF pilots cannot handle manual flying without having an anxiety attack, they need to be brought up to speed, quick.
Either that or reassigned to a ground job.

Recall one post on the Tech Forum awhile back about a First Officer, who found it a ...'nightmare' to hand fly the aircraft after an autopilot failure.
Ask yourself, is this the guy you want at the pointy end flying you...or your family?

[PPRuNe Towers]

hmmmmmmm, just given the '80 knots call' thread over on tech log another coat of looking at. We can see the clash of cultures in action there.

I just want to add something to those who've been brought up in an autopilot, autothrottle and flightdirector always on company.

Don't care if you see this as pragmatic, plain old cover yer ass, duty of care to your pax or the ravings of a luddite.

If your MEL allows you to dispatch with any of the three mother's little helpers U/S how can you defend yourself if you never practice? If the loss of one or more of them in flight doesn't lead to a QRH entry: 'land at nearest available/suitable field,' surely the onus lays on you to practice this. The sim just doesn't cut it because the box ticking/checking aspect takes primacy.

What I'm suggesting is that you try to drain the subject of emotion, ignore blandishments about being a better, more complete pilot. Treat it as a piece of contractual law and as inexorable logic progression.

If SOP's, Ops Manual and QRH or MEL allow or assume you will continue flying when an autopilot, flight director or autothrottles give up the ghost surely it is incumbent on you to be able to competently and safely complete the flight????? Therefore it must be equally incumbent on you to remain practiced and current whatever the culture at your place of work.

Rob

[PA-28-180]

Excellent Towers! This is exactly what I and others were (trying?) to point out at the beginning of this thread I think. Carriers here routinely fly auto-pilot only..actually not even below 1,000' usually all the way through auto-land. And they have SOPs which allow dispatch with 1 AP U/S (on a regular basis). With maintenance issues and fast long haul turnarounds then thrown in, it's a definate safety concern-which I believe is the purpose and point of this forum. ;)

[Daysleeper]

Well if you never hand fly then this happens

AAIB - march 2003 reports

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_507767.hcsp

[bateman]

Being a simple guy, should I be writing the company ops manual I would suggest.

AP must be used for all departures and arrivals ;
1. LNAV proceedures (eg, schipol SID/STAR's)
2. Night
3. IMC
4. Cat II or III ILS
5. Any other time that EITHER member of the crew considers nessecary.

If you want to practise your hand flying skill, thats a good thing, but safety should always come first.

cheers
Bateman

[PPRuNe Towers]

AP must be used for all departures and arrivals

Ummm, care to run that one by me in the light your QRH and MEL or will you be rewriting them as well??? :E :E :E

What about always using the autothrottle until the day it fails and it's Cat 11?? No autothrottle ain't a stopper for most aircraft. Do you divert? Is that in your book?

How will you get into Schipol, CDG, Muc or the rest of the Lnav airports if your autopilot goes twang? Divert?

Sitting down it all sounds sensible and safe but the reality is your MEL, QRH and company manuals will expect you to dispatch/continue. And loads of you are subscribing to a culture where simple failures are effectively emergencies due to lack of practice. You go off duty shaking your head and get deeper into the 'it's not safe mindset' because it was bloody hard work.

Here it is in a nutshell. If a company document, any document allows/expects you to launch or continue flight without an autopilot, flight director or autothrottle it isn't an emergency, it's something you should regularly practice - not frighten the other guy coz you're in the sim next week.

[splatgothebugs]

"It is all about safety"

Sorry but I can't see how always flying around with an AP on is creating a safe enviroment.

AP's when over used can make pilots very complacent, at the end of the day there is a time and place for APs and hand flying it's just finding the correct mix of the two :ok:

splat

[Jetstream Rider]

Here is the big thing - what is safety?

If you fly all approaches on AP and mandate its use, when something different happens (even like a visual approach) then you are eroding safety margins MORE because you are out of practice. What happens when you fly into Tel Aviv and they give you a visual onto 30 because the wind is out of limits? I have flown that with a very nervous captain on a gin clear day. He was worried we would screw up - its only a visual approach for goodness sake.

The guys who I fly with who regulary practice hand flying with and without the flight director are much better at everything, because their capacity is higher and they understand what is happening more.

The day before yesterday I turned the flight director off because my flying was better without it. Nailing the flight director got me levelled off 100 feet below my chosen altitude - OK, I should have scanned more, but that is the problem with a flight director - it erodes your scan, hence the fact that I turned it off, scanned more and flew more accurately.

I never want to fly with someone who thinks his hand flying is so dangerous that he shouldn't do it with passengers on board. If that is true he shouldn't be flying. Full stop.

[BlueEagle]

All very interesting stuff but we seem to have drifted away from the original posters question!

The original question was about the use of autopilots when there is a system failure or some other abnormal situation that does not preclude the use of autopilots.

I believe that during abnormal situations if autopilots are available then they should be used where possible so that the crew can sit back and properly assess their situation and then make the correct decisions. Thereafter it may well be prudent to handfly but this would depend on the nature of the abnormality.

[bateman]

As a captain, Ive watched 250 hour F/O's use 100% of their concentration just to hand fly a departure in IMC. I think that the AP should be on, and they should free up some of their attention to monitor other aspects of the flight.

When its day VMC I would encourage f/o's to do as much hand flying as they want and I agree with your points on the benefits of practice. I dont dispute that practice expands a persons capability. But I would suggest that night/IMC is not the best time for it.


An excellent case in point is the QF overrun at Bangkok.

Page 5 of the ATSB report states that - "The first officer reported that he decided to fly the approach 'manually' in order to get some 'hands-on' flying".

Page 44 states one of the ACTIVE FAILURES as - "The first officer did not fly the aircraft accurately during the final approach".

The weather was terrible, it was night, and the guy hadnt slept in 18+ hours. These are not the best conditions to be practicing your manual approaches, and I would argue that putting in the AP and monitoring would have been a better option.

I will concede that the long haul guys need hand flying practice because they get so little of it. But I think that you can see the point I am making here. Hand flying is unsuitable under certain circumstances.

pprune towers - I see your point that Mandatory autopilot use is incompatable with some emergency situations. In that case, change my wording to "AP SHOULD be used WHEN AVAILABLE...".

Bateman

[Jetstream Rider]

The weather was terrible, it was night, and the guy hadnt slept in 18+ hours. These are not the best conditions to be practicing your manual approaches, and I would argue that putting in the AP and monitoring would have been a better option.

Indeed, very true and I would say the same.

Page 44 states one of the ACTIVE FAILURES as - "The first officer did not fly the aircraft accurately during the final approach".

Which is why he needs the practice....!

pprune towers - I see your point that Mandatory autopilot use is incompatable with some emergency situations. In that case, change my wording to "AP SHOULD be used WHEN AVAILABLE...".

Except that it is always available until the time when you have an MEL item, or emergency/abnormal situation and then you have to hand fly with no practice, making it very dangerous indeed.

How about "use the autopilot when prudent", which should be covered under the "operate the aeroplane safely" rule which all airlines have written somewhere, but in different words.

Currency is realised to be very important in all aviaiton, so much so that we mandate it for pilots no matter what their experience. Unless we are current at hand flying, we are eroding safety margins for when we need our skills. You can't always practise in good weather, and sometimes you need to practise in cloud for instance, because it is simply different to flying on a gin clear day.
The example above would not be one of those times though.

[Daysleeper]

some seem to say hand flying should only be used in day vmc.

For pities sake what are we producing from flight schools these days.:(

[BlueEagle]

Daysleeper I think what the schools are turning out are capable, if inexperienced, IR rated pilots, with a minimum of hours and a new licence who are familiar with single crew Seneca/Cessna310 types of operation. The problems can start when they get their first airline job and are suddenly thrust into a multi-crew automated flight deck environment which, by design, encourages automated flying, their recently acquired skills then get rusty and the experience bank they have to fall back on is not so deep and in a totally different type of flying. Those of us who have had the benefit of twenty odd years experience of relatively unsophisticated aircraft should have no problem reverting to basics when required so an area that perhaps needs to be looked at is appropriate continuation training for new pilots coming from the flying schools and going straight to the advanced and automated flight deck?

More generally, in order that we don't find ourselves at cross purposes, I think it is important to identify just which aircraft we are talking about, as , with most modern aircraft a high degree of knowledge and expertise of the automatic systems is required if they are to be used to their full advantage. On the other side of the coin we have such aircraft as the BAC1-11 and the B737-200 where I seem to remember that all approaches were hand flown, in fact all flying below 10,000', since the automation available was very limited and amounted to Hdg Hold, Alt Hold and VS. I don't remember the VOR/LOC function ever being satisfactory!

As I mentioned above, many of the newer aircraft are automated by design, not just for normal operations but also to cope with the majority of abnormal situations too, now that there is no Flight Engineer, deliberately reducing to an absolute minimum the occasion when you might find yourself with no alternative but to hand fly. Two engines out on a four engine aircraft is one, (B747), also unscheduled stab trim input with both channels inoperative is another and the most probable, I think, might be structural damage that takes out hydraulic systems. They have all happened but can hardly be described as common occurrences and the relevant hand-flying that needs to be practised the most is with the above mentioned scenarios present.

Hand flying a serviceable aircraft is of course essential to maintain IR skills, skills that will be most in demand if things are going wrong and the auto-pilot won't work and should, in my opinion, be practised whenever it can be done without eroding any safety margins and I don't believe there can be any SOP that covers that as every flight is different. With my last employer we were told to take the autopilot at 400'agl when departing LHR but this was on very heavy B747s and designed to ensure that our tracking was sufficiently accurate to avoid ringing any bells! A trial period showed that this procedure worked the best. That was the only auto pilot SOP I have encountered, other than for CatII/III operations.

[Daysleeper]

perhaps my earlier comment should have been, what is our system of flight training producing, after all the flight schools only train to the standard the industry and regulators require.
There is IMHO a worrying skills gap developing between the older generation who, as you say, flew aircraft where automation was a luxury, and the younger generation with 250 hours putting the AP in at 1500 feet on the way up and taking it out at 500' 3 hours later on the way down.
For example 2 x 3 hour sectors a day , 4 days a week, logged 96 hours in a month, actually flew the aeroplane for 40 minutes. So in a whole year a pilot might only hand fly for 12 hours.
Extreme example maybe but if your adding that onto your stock of knowlege gained after a 250 hour course then it is surprising there are not more handling incidents.

[ponderpoint]

The whole autopilot thing is real easy.

If you feel inadequate if you don't hand fly enough, just disengage in low workload/VFR conditions at low traffic airports. It's actually fun and you get the "feel" back. Then if you have a situation where you cannot use it, it's a lot easier.

As for routine... I don't think any turbojet should be handflown anyway. This is 2003 and the autopilot will ALWAYS give the passengers a smoother ride.

[maxy101]

The problem is some of us only fly around highly congested Europe with its equally congested airports. Would you suggest hand flying from Chicago to JFK ? It may be o.k if it´s your backyard, but I for one have to work hard on any stateside trip with the adherence to U.S standard r/t along with U.S controlling (not worse just different). Also I gather that virtually no U.S airline runs any type of SESMA or event monitoring system in the flight deck, so we have to be overlly careful when accepting U.S style visual approaches. Basically, it´s safer for my career to keep the autopilot in.....

[JW411]

I have only just found this thread and I have to say that I am quite amazed at the number of posters who seem to think that flying their aircraft without an autopilot is such a big deal.

As I said on another forum recently, the presence of an autopilot on the aircraft that I presently fly is not required by the MEL. Not long ago I did a 4-sector duty hand-flying and it was no big deal at all. I don't want to do it every night but it was no big deal.

I freely admit to belonging to the old school and I also spend a lot of time in the simulator so that I always tend to hand-fly for the first and last 20,000 feet when I'm flying the real thing (unless the weather is crap). It is very easy to keep current at button-pushing but much harder to keep your hand-flying up to scratch. To me that is the essential skill for a professional pilot.

We all have to be prepared for the unthinkable such as a total electrical failure. Believe me, it does happen from time to time. From my experience it is not simple engine failures or fires at V1 that kill people it is when the bizarre happenings that are not in the QRH occur and which therefore usually involve a high degree of basic aircraft handling skills that things start to go badly wrong. That is why we are called pilots and not dog-handlers and, as I have always assumed, is precisely what we are paid for.

In any event I can now understand from some of the responses on this thread why the introduction of the raw data ILS to minimums as required for the JAR LPC (FCL 1.240 (b)(1) Item 3.9.3.1) caused such a fluttering in the dovecot. As a TRI/TRE who conducts dozens of such tests every year it has been my experience that the beginners (with 250-400 hours) find this exercise quite easy and so do the old boys (once they have got over the initial shock). However there were quite a few who fell between the two stools who were obviously pushing too many buttons and whose basic flying skills had been neglected. My debriefs have obviously worked for I don't see too much of this any more.

I also spend a lot of my time teaching LOFT. I simply cannot buy the idea that by hand-flying we are over-loading the PNF. I can personally quite happily hand-fly the aircraft and deal with ATC etc while PNF deals with getting the weather and other things. If you really don't think this can be done what the hell are you going to do when you have a total electrical failure and your F/O is immersed in a very complicated QRH drill and can't monitor you anyway for the standby horizon is on the captain's panel?

Now then, I love automatics. I was disappointed in the DC-10 for it was only duplex-autoland (I came from a triplex-autoland background)! I always but always teach pilots to use the autoplilot when something goes wrong IF IT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE. That always helps us to step back a little bit from the problem and become better managers but, for God's sake, don't forget that you were hired as a PILOT and not as a dog-handler!

[LOMCEVAK]

When I learnt to fly, AIRMANSHIP was something that was stressed, taught and encouraged. Sadly, we hardly ever hear that word today! There are times when good airmanship dictates that the AP should be used. However, if a pilot does not maintain a good level of competence in hand flying skills then he is displaying poor airmanship. Therefore, if it is prudent and safe to hand fly a departure or arrival then it should be hand flown in order to maintain these skills.

I had one trip in a "Classic" Boeing where, in accordance with the MEL, we dispatched with the 'Alt Sel' autopilot function inoperative but with the 'Alt Hold' function working. This meant that there was a high probability of an altitude bust with the AP engaged if the normal habit pattern and swith selections were followed. Therefore, it was much safer to hand fly the aircraft and scan the altimeter when levelling off. Oh, and that was into and then out of ORD!

Traditional stick and rudder skills are dying in both commercial and military aircraft due to the advent of electronic flight control systems with envelope protection. Soon, these skills will only reside in sport aviation. Let us practise and preserve these skills as much as we can - one day your life may depend on them.

[Captain Stable]

I hear exactly where people like JW411 and LOMCEVAK are coming from and to a certain extent - but only a certain extent - I agree with them.

As I have pointed out many, many times, it is incumbent upon pilots to keep ALL our skills up to date. However, there are times and places to do so.

CRM also dictates that you ask the PNF if he minds. JW411, you say you can't see him getting overloaded. Is he monitoring you at all times? Probably not. Do you ask him before taking the A/P out? You say you teach LOFT. How do you incorporate CRM into that?

I have no patience at all with pilots who refuse ever to do any hand flying except as noted earlier, when they have a sim ride coming up. Similarly I have little patience with the bluff old captain who blusters his way through a flight deprecating the youngsters nowadays and cowing them into submission (I'm NOT including you in this, JW411, lest there be any doubt!).

Nor do I have any patience with people who say "I've been flying this way for fifty years and never had an accident so I don't need CRM - we never did in the old days blah blah blah..."

CRM is here to stay. It has contributed to a massive reduction in the accident rate. Practice it. Likewise, the automatics are very good nowadays. They make the ride far smoother, far more economical. Use them as a matter of course. But keep your handflying skills in as well.

[411A]

Lots of BS here (mostly from Capt Stable...sorry old boy but you have forgotten the use of the pole, when it's needed)...!
Hand fly as much as possible, get the feel of the machine, and in time when you need it the most, it will pay dividends, absolutely.
Having said this, the automatics on some (read TriStar) types were/are very good, so use 'em if you like,...but gimmie a break, to ask the guy..."do you mind?", is absolute nonsence.
IF the F/O cannot keep the plot, then he does NOT belong in the pointy end....ever.

What if the Captain keels over...? Then, what does the co-pilot do, talk to himself?
Good grief...!:ooh:

[BlueEagle]

You would appear to have absolutely no conception whatsoever about the modern, (and that excludes the L1011), two crew automated cockpit.

In order to obtain certification for most of the modern, automated 'glass' cockpit aircraft flying to-day the manufacturers had to introduce sufficient automation to enable the Flight Engineer and his panel to be removed. In order that the aircraft can be flown properly, in all conditions, both normal and abnormal it essential that the crews maintain a very high degree of competence in operating the automatic systems so that when things go wrong or the workload gets high they can smoothly and efficiently conduct a safe operation. This is unlikely to happen if a pilot decides to dispense with automation and hand fly as they will then require continuous monitoring whilst calling out instructions and requesting various checklists from the other pilot who will be covering the R/T, executing the required changes to the FMC and and MCP and doing abnormal check lists at the same time.

Practise hand flying by all means to cover the very rare occasion when you have no alternatives but please try and remember that with the passing of the flight engineer and the introduction of high levels of automation flight deck philosophy has also changed.

[Captain Stable]

411A, I concur totally with my colleague Blue Eagle.

Like it or not, CRM is with us. If you can't follow its precepts and principles, you have no place on a modern flight deck. And like it or not, you will be polite to all other users - including the moderators - on this forum. If you are incapable of that, I will ban you from this forum permanently.

Do I make myself clear?

[411A]

Captain Stable, Blue Eagle--

Personally do fully appreciate that the more modern types (ie; no Flight Engineer) have a high degree of automation, however I can not help to wonder just what would be the end result if, for example, a junior First Officer was to be operating a flight that had the autopilot(s) unserviceable (either fail enroute or dispatched under MEL), and the Captain was to become totally incapacitated.
Under these circumstances (yes I know an unlikely event),
would not said First Officer be at a terrible disadvantage if he/she had not developed (and kept current) reasonable hand-flying skills?

A comment last year on these forums from a younger First Officer having to hand fly a 767 back from the Med at night with autopilots unserviceable..."a nightmare really..." sure did not inspire a lot of confidence from this end.

Yes, CRM is very useful, especially on the two crew types, but in the situation I have outlined, do you not think that a high degree of hand flying skill is absolutely required?

[BlueEagle]

Yes 411A I agree, under the circumstances you describe the F/O's hand flying skills will be required to be up to standard, I think that is what many of us have been saying here, up to standard - Yes but not at the expense of a comprehensive knowledge of the automation available and not to be practised if it will erode any safety margins.

Flying back to the UK in B767 from the Med without autopilot should not present any problems at all. Remember getting airborne from Manila once, after about one hour out we lost our autopilots and continued to Bahrain, (10 hours), without them, no problem, just very tiring and not as smooth as autopilots would have been.

[Propjet88]

Thank goodness the world has moved on from the days when all pilots had to be capable of delivering "The right stuff" 24/7 (or at least rather die than admit otherwise). Sad to see some pterodactyls still roam the skies

The latest iteration of human factors (CRM) is as close as I have seen to defining that elusive level of common sense that some of us call airmanship.
Pilots need to :
a) Anticipate and manage threats to the operation.
b) Manage crew errors. In the past all training was geared to minimising errors - with little attention being paid to the fact that if humans are involved, errors WILL occur.

Clearly technical proficiency (stick and rudder skills) remain very important. However, "optimal" use of resources - such as a sophisticated autopilot allows maximum brain capacity to be dedicated to threat management.

Simply put, read the crash comics and consider the likely threat levels. (e.g. Non - precision approach, night, bad weather, complex arrival / departure, busy CTA, tired crew etc).

In high threat environments such as the above - use all available resources to free up your brain so that you can actively manage the situation.

In low threat environments - practice your hand flying. (The simulator is the ultimate in "low threat" environments).

Be safe

PJ88

[Captain Stable]

411A, nobody has ever said that you should allow handflying skills to degrade. In fact, I have been at pains to point out that we should keep ALL our skills up to date and proficient.

You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with people here. But I will not permit you to refer to the offerings of people with whom you disagree as either nonsense (please not the spelling) or as BS.

And if you are unable to get some input as to how the FO likes you doing things that are not immediately necessary and do, however, you dress it up, erode to a certain degree the margins of safety, you have no right to call yourself a professional pilot.

CRM is all about keeping all the members of the team in the loop. It is about ensuring you use all resources possible to bring the flight to a safe and expeditious conclusion. It is not about you "doing it this way because that's the way I've always done it and I've never had an accident yet".

Like it or not, if you give your FO the feeling that he has no say whatsoever is how the flight is conducted, you WILL cut yourself off from an essential source of information and assistance if it all goes pear-shaped. This is NOT good CRM. Time to learn that lesson. If you can't learn it, then time to retire.

I am still waiting for your confirmation that you understand the rules of how this forum operate.

[Fragman88]

My, what a can of worms has been opened!

I personally believe in the old `maximise the use of the automatics' as featured in many checklists (normally the nasty ones with the bold type and coloured edges).

HOWEVER, when I left training college with the ink drying on my shiny new IR, I fondly imagined I had seen the last of NDB approaches and the like outside renewal time.

Wrong.

Throughout the next 25 odd years flying medium to large airliners, I frequently found myself doing non-precision approaches of all kinds. An ILS to a minimums night visual circling approach in a 747 is something that will test your hand flying currency quite effectively. For this reason I think it essential to practice hand flying whenever possible (both Captain and F/O...possibly even more important for the F/O). I would however be unlikely to do much in places like LHR or LAX, just because of the workload and traffic density. However a visual/manual approach into a place like Bali or Cairns is just a sheer delight, which of course is something not to be forgotten....enjoyment!

On the subject of visuals, often the autopilot/FD will actually be a major hinderance and workload generator. This because a well flown visual (I may not have flown many well myself, but Ive seen a lot!) requires continual smooth changes in ROD, Pitch and Bank Angle. The A/P and FD will certainly not give the roll commands desired (wings level or rate 1 is all you'll get), and the resulting continual reprogramming and adjustments make for a uncomfortable ride and high workload. This is compounded if the PF elects to do a visual with the FD still engaged, as the choice is either ignore it, which is not good practice, or load up the PNF with continual small adjustments,which all have to be called for, verified, etc. Also,of course the same problems apply as for the A/P in terms of available outputs.

I was taught, and then passed on to my students, that if the autopilot is taken out to do a visual, then ditch the F/D as well, for it is far more trouble than it's worth and is often working against you. If your manuals and A/C systems allow it, give it a try. I think you'll find it frees up the PNF a lot which is good, because if anything the monitoring requirements on this sort of approach are even higher than normal.

So that's my $0.02, nice to see that not all the dinosaurs are dead :ok: Most importantly remember it is possible and highly desirable to enjoy this profession, it makes up for the hopefully rare trip with the grumpy old dinosaurs!

Right Airfield, Right Way Up, and if it can be used again with minimal work, who can complain!!:p

PS Agree 100% with the earlier comments re. Flight Engineers, Had my @rse saved many times by them, and miss them terribly. God Bless these Fine Gentlemen

[j3pipercub]

I have been watching this forum for some time with avid interest. It appears to me that 411A appears to be from the old school type of cockpit, where Captain God ruled all and did not have to ask permission from that pimply first officer as he had over double his experience in aviaiton.

Fortunatley, this type of mentatlity is becoming extinct however on occasion we still come in contact with the Captain God syndrome in our travels.

I agree whole heartedly with Blue Eagle, Hand flying experience should be maintained, but not at busy airports like JFK or LHR. This type of tally-ho attitude will only create more problems. There are three autopilots in these type of machines. NOT because they look prettier in threes, but for the safety issue. They were designed to know the machine better than humans ever possibly could. Get your hand flying experience, but get it in the sim or in perfect weather. Its not rocket science, but a choice of putting the safety of the pax who have entrusted their lives to you before the attitude of 'I'll fly it because I like a challenge'. If you like a challenge, do it in your own time, in the sim, when you're not going to kill anyone. :)

Cheers

[411A]

Capt'n Stable,

Fully understand your input, but then again remember a private message you sent sometime back indicating that my input was...a prime example of CRM, not.

Been around a very long time and can positively say that CRM will not land the aeroplane when it does indeed go pear shaped, and the junior First Officer, faced with a very challanging situation, is up to his behind in alligators (failed systems, incapacitated Captain...etc)...it is ONLY positive, concise training from senior guys, supported my management who understand that said training is very important.

Automatics are fine in the normal flow of operations, but practiced hand flying is essential for safety.

Agree...or not?

[splatgothebugs]

I have been reading this thread from the day it started and apart from some stupid comments it has been very interesting, informative and very educational for those of us who dont drive jets.

I would like to know what all your comments are on the following situation. I will firstly add that the crews that fly these aircraft are very well thought off in the industry with an extremly good safety record (almost enviable).

Two pilot crew with no AP installed, flight directors only, the aircraft are just off new with some very modern avionics and pretty quick.

splat :D

[Rananim]

Captain Stable,Blue Eagle,
Indeed it is you that have lost the plot!Instead of making threats to ban a contributor,why dont you argue the point.Put that in your CRM pipe and smoke it.
411 is totally correct.I didnt hear him advocating manual flying without FD's when you're running an abnormal checklist.Although you may well have to!And if you're the skipper,you'll probably be wanting to manage the abnormal situation,which leaves the First Officer flying the thing.So he'd better know how to fly.Which is why this side of the pond,we dont have any 250 hr guys in the right seat of a jet airliner(or turboprop for that matter)!!!!
CRM is just fine,but it has its place.Its a Captains aircraft,and dont forget that.
Seems like an Atlantic divide here.
DO YOU MIND if I log off now?Over and out.
BTW,Capt Stable,you chose to correct 411 for a minor spelling error and then left the 'e' off 'note'.Good CRM.Do as I say,not as I do.

[Captain Stable]

Rananim, my argument is not with 411A's points re Autopilot use. That is a matter of interpretation, opinion, and, yes, some Atlantic Divide.

Like it or not, this is a UK-based website. Over here, CRM has many times proved its worth. Over here, the Captain is not necessarily God. We accept that he is human, as liable to make mistakes as the next human being and, therefore, when things go wrong, is in need of all the assistance he can get.

Of course it is his aircraft, and the decisions are his to make. Simple common sense dictates that he gets all the input he can before making that decision (time permitting) and he also asks for any suggestions that might not have occurred to him. Having done so, he makes his decision and communicates it to anyone who needs to know.

In order for this to work, he needs to ensure that a good professional atmosphere is maintained at all times. Acting as if "This is the Cockpit, you are the Resource and I am the Management" will not get the job done. Many people have tried - quite a few have died. Some survived, and therein lies the problem of the aviation dinosaurs.

Finally, as I pointed out above, I will not tolerate personal abuse being thrown at anyone here, nor use of terms such as "You have lost the plot". Any contributor who cannot remain within the terms of this forum will be banned.

I hope this is clear enough.

[Captain_Happy]

All I can say is I'm glad I don't have to share your cockpit 411A...

Totally agree with Captain Stable; here in the UK we (on the whole) firmly believe in CRM as an effective tool for crew interaction.

CRM is there for the benefit of all concerned. If you're going to be so disparaging about CRM then why not just throw all SOPs out the window at the same time and fly the a/c to the deck all on your own??? :rolleyes:

As a relatively junior FO (who, for the record, regularly hand-flies the a/c) I find it quite worrying that this kind of attitude still prevails.

Getting back to the point, I'll always use common sense in judging if and when it is appropriate to ask the skipper if they mind me hand-flying... What are we trying to prove here??

[Crazycanuk]

M.85

please dont get off topic, this is good stuff.

First of all lets try and stop making assumptions like "if the first officer has to take over..." This assumes that the first officer is a person who posseses less skill and knowledge than the captain when in fact in todays world of seniority list and bankruptsies the opposite is offten true. (CRM...never assume)

Now, if you are flying along, it does not matter where, and both pilots (for 411a, they can both figure it out by talking to each other CRM...communication) have assesed (CRM... assess) it would be safe to hand fly then by all means take out the auto-pilot and get some practice (CRM... action) Then all is going well and you are both managing the situation quite easily (CRM... manage) and something happens, does not matter what, both pilots should assess the situation and if it is decided it would be better to engage the auto-pilot then good judgment dictates that it should be re-engaged.

If we follow this basic way of doing things we should all get some practise hand flying and we should be able to run the auto-flight systems in the most demanding of situations.

As for the old school way of doing things I don't see too much wrong with it but the way things are done now is better and safer. Anyone who can't adjust to the new way of doing things IMHO would have problems ADJUSTING to some scenerio that develops in the cockpit that no one has ever even dreamed about.

Old way...good
New way...better
Like it or lump it.

crazy

[redsnail]

When I flew the Dash 8 in Oz it was an SOP to ask the PNF if the PF could hand fly the approach. Reason? if the AP was out then the PNF had to set the hdg bugs and speed bugs etc. This could add a significant amount to their workload if already quite busy.
When doing circling app's, it was easier to disconnect the AP and hand fly it, using the vertical channel (cross hairs, not V bars) for height keeping.

Now in the UK I rarely use the AP because it either doesn't work or isn't fitted. I do use the FD but I watch it like a hawk because it has told lies before. Several times a month I'll do raw data approaches because it's good for the scan and I enjoy it. (night freighter Shed). Personally I find the FD a pain during NDB approaches I prefer to fly them raw data. If I had cross needles for the FD then I would just use the vertical channel so I don't go through the MDA.

CRM isn't about being polite, that's manners, CRM's about effective communication between all parties.

[M.85]

Having flown without any A/P until my last Type rating, I was wondering if the "turning the knobs",making sure the A/Ps do the right thing,FMA scanning ...wasnt asking more effort from the pilot than merely flying the bird...
I understand high altitude flying requires the precision of AP due to basic aerodynamic laws(low density,stall speed margin...)but hand flying would keep you in the loop rather than merely operating the A/C..and becoming complecent due to the AP work.

M.85