Practicing basic skills – a simulator exercise only?

[tom775257]

G'day all,

This is an area that I have yet to make my mind up about: specifically whether line flights morally should be used to practice manual flying skills that in doing so can reduce the levels of safety protection for the passengers, or perhaps reduce the capacity of the PF and PNF from external factors – and associated issues with regards to training of new pilots such as myself.

I will discuss the A320 type because this is the only jet transport I know well. From people I chat to there seems to be (at least in the U.K.) pressure to use automatics as much as possible, I think this will degrade skills.

At the airline (non-UK) I fly for, there is the opposite thought train. (In all cases I describe, it is when conditions and airmanship permit). We are encouraged to fly auto-thrust off approaches, visual approaches, raw data approaches etc. My line training was about 5 times longer than most airlines, which included pitch power only approaches (i.e. autopilot/A/thr/flight directors/bird off) from 15,000’ etc, an engine pulled to idle in the aircraft for real just after rotation on base training, and flying flights a few times from some point after take off single crew to vacating the runway at the other end (CM1 monitoring all the time) to show you can handle it if the captain is incapacitated.

When I chat to people from other airlines, aspects of my training were described as ‘cowboy,’ because of the thought that this should only be tried in the simulator. I will always stand up for the training I had. As a pilot, I feel very comfortable with the aircraft – for example at a very basic level I always look through the flight directors, something which is easy to say but I fear that many FO’s on the A320 wouldn’t be able to tell you what sort of pitch attitude you should expect for a config, and what N1 etc. I think what is ‘Cowboy’ is flying A/Thr on approaches for 5.5 months and then taking it off on approach just before the sim for practice! We know this has led to a bad tail strike on the A320.

The argument that the autos keep below average crews safe is false, it just hides lack of i)Training and or ii)Ability - you need to be able to handle it when it goes wrong. If you can’t fly an autothrust off approach with everything else working, how the hell are you going to be able to land it with multiple failures.

The training at your first airline is IMHO incredibly important as a basis for a career as a jet pilot – certainly I think transitioning to, for example, a Boeing from an A320 as your first type without the appreciation of the basics of flying jets will lead to problems. The A320 training at many airlines seems to concentrate on the very high level stuff – modes, autos, managed this and that, without building it up from the very basic pitch and power all the way up to fully managed NPAs.

Practising these things outside of the simulator, when sensible and prudent, is not only safe, but required in my opinion. To ban these things is to pander to the lawyers (I guess if you crash and some autos are off the airline could be liable….)

Touch wood, the airline I work for hasn’t had a crash or incident in over 30 years, long may it continue.

Any thoughts, sorry long random ramblings I know.

[redsnail]

In our airline (although it's a bizjet operation) we're encouraged to hand fly whenever the conditions allow.

Obviously, a busy departure from London City with an arrival into Le Bourget is not the time, but other locations lend themselves to being hand flown.

Our operation dictates that we hand fly the approach into Lon City so we do get a bit of practice in before sim time. :)

[J.O.]

In the end, airlines set their policy on use of automation vs manual flight as a function of their assessment of the risk of one vs the other. If your airline had experienced mutliple tail strike accidents during situations when the crew had disconnected the automation, and none when the automation was being used, what do you think their decision would be? There are airlines with that as their track record.

As for my personal opinion, I believe that when I am flying my aircraft with a load of paying pax on board, I owe it to them to operate the aircraft in the way it was intended by the manufacturer and my company's SOPs as much as safely possible. Since I fly the A320 for a company that wants us to use the automation, that means I use it for the vast majority of my time in the air. I haven't disconnected the autothrust during a normal flight in years. I've practised it enough times in the simulator to honestly believe that I don't need to practise it on the line.

Does this mean I don't believe in the value of disconnecting the automation during routine line ops? No not really, but doing so does increase the risk of a tail strike or hard landing if the thrust and speed aren't properly managed during the approach and landing.

[Dream Land]

This question pops up from time to time, my philosophy is similar to yours, and for what it's worth, having worked on both sides of the pond, the UK training involved a lot of "automation off" flying, much more than in the US based training.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Tom77527--- I like your company's training philosophy sounds a bit costly, but it seem that they like to just see things done properly--that's the way:D

[calypso]

It becomes a self-fullfilled prophecy. The less hand flying we do ->
the worst we are at doing it -> the more dangerous it becomes to do it.

My take on it is that since neither the autopilot nor the autothrust is a MEL no-go item I must be proficient in flying the AC without them. I wasn't born knowing how to fly a jet and practice is the only way I can be any good at it. I do it regularly, if the situation allows it and not just before a sim, and I don't feel overly taxed by handflying or by monitoring a handflying pilot. Equally I am not too proud to reconnect the autopilot halfway through an approach if it gets too busy or complicated.

As for pax comfort I bet anything they don't notice. As for efficiency at least I don't fly a four mile level segment at 3000' or do geometric descent paths between two altitude constraints.

[ITCZ]

: specifically whether line flights morally should be used to practice manual flying skills that in doing so can reduce the levels of safety protection for the passengers

Morally? I have met some excellent airline pilots, but not all of them would measure up to community standards of morality, especially after some of the layovers I witnessed! ;)

Are you perhaps referring to a different standard that might be labelled: "Duty of Care"?

since neither the autopilot nor the autothrust is a MEL no-go item I must be proficient in flying the AC without them.

I think Calypso hit the nail on the head.

There is a difference between recreational and professional aviation. If the conditions are less than perfect, a recreational pilot should question whether they should dispatch.

A professional pilot however, when conditions are less than ideal, but within operational limits, should be able to "go". If it is safe and do-able using established techniques, the pro pilot should go. If the pro pilot does not possess, or has let lapse, the essential skills of his/her profession, then that pilot should either get practising or perhaps consider the morality of taking his/her employer's good money.

The fact that your aircraft has MEL that allow your aircraft to dispatch with all or part of the automation u/s, is one very good indication of which skills you should possess and keep sharp.

Use of automation, or a particular combination of automation and other flying skills, should remain a tactical and strategic decision by the pilot.

The decision to use automation should be not be based on a lack of basic professional skills. Likewise, a decision to hand fly a departure or approach should be based on personal proficiency needs and the requirements of the situation, not as an egotistical desire to impress.

Manouevres such as hand flying normal departures and arrivals, visual and instrument approaches, can and should be practiced on the line. The potential for error or oversight by the pilot flying can be mitigated by appropriately briefing your support pilot, who then monitors FD and mode changes on his/her side. Modern simulators are good, but still have limitations. It is good to remind oneself every so often that one can still fly an aeroplane.

However, manouevres involving non-normal configurations, failures, control system abnormalities, etc, where the consequences of some errors are possibly unrecoverable, are best practised in the simulator.

[Admiral346]

I fully agree with ITCZ - especially the last sentence !!!

Tom's training sounds good to me, up to the point of reducing an engine to idle after V1. That I would consider a punishable offence, if it was done to me. I t is simply endangering everybody on board, and it is exactly what simulators have been invented for.
Hand flying raw data is normal ops and every pilot should be able to do it - I just found out after switching from seven years of A340 to a CRJ, how hard it was to do a proper job of flying a simple ILS. But flying longhaul, it is not really fun to do some hand flying if you are fatigued after 12 hours.
I practice regularily now, when traffic is light or when going to airfields who still let you fly a visual. The practice is also lived by the copilots, who will ask before switching to manual, if one is ok with the increased workload of monitoring the PF. My company has it in the books, that every pilot should be able to use the apropriate amount of automation, and easily switch between the various levels. The training department encourages hand flying during line training.

However, never, ever, a failure of any kind is simulated on the line, as this would take redundancy out of a fully functional system, and as stated above, is considered "endangering air traffic" in the penal code, aside from being irresponsible and simply stupid.

Nic

[ssg]

You train to handle the aircraft, with each successive failure after another, with competence, untill your a power out, dark aircraft, no nav, no radios, no electrical system, a glider, to the point of the landing where you have either picked out an acceptable landing spot or can effictively crash the aircraft and save the passengers.

Anything less then this is unnacceptable performance from that pilot.

If you need to rely on the FMS, GPS, F. D. , TCAS, TAWS, HSI, and auto pilot to get from point A to B, fly boxes untill your ready to carry passengers.

The current thought in schools these days that a raw data approach is an 'emergency procedure' flies in the face of the fact that scores of 'kids' are flying cargo runs with little more then raw data instruments each and every night.

This isn't a debate. Airline hiring team players vs people with skills is what is creating this 'debate'

Explain this to the passengers, see what they think.

[FougaMagister]

It's a common misconception to imagine that manual skills are practiced much in the sim. With all the "boxes to tick" during a typical OPC/LPC scenario and emergencies thrown in, there isn't actually a great deal of time left to practice basic handling skills :{

I am lucky that my outfit, while practicing flight data monitoring, encourages us to hand fly whenever possible (and advisable). OK, so as freight dogs we have no PAX to upset, but that means we take full advantage of that fact to fly the approach with A/P off/in raw data, do visual approaches, or fly the SID manually, etc. The bottom line is that many of my colleagues, along with excellent aircraft technical knowledge, are also aces at stick and rudder, "seat of the pants" flying. As a (relatively) recent joiner, I feel that there is little we couldn't handle.

Cheers :cool:

[Tee Emm]

As those of a certain era know, the book "Handling the Big Jets" by D.P. Davies, chief test pilot of the UK Air registration Board ARB, is probably the best of it's kind. In my previous life as a airline pilot I followed the advice of the author when he wrote:

"Finally do not become lazy in your professional lives. The autopilot is a great comfort, so are the flight director and approach coupler. But do not get into the position where you need these devices to complete the flight. Keep in practice in hand-flying the aeroplane at altitude and in making purely visual approaches. .....As we get older we all become slightly more lazy, slightly more tired - and this is a bit of a trap. The demand of jet transport flying can best be met by enthusiasm. Personal enthusiasm for the job is beyond value because it is a built-in productive force, and those who have it do not have to be pushed into practice and the search for knowledge. Enthusiasm thus generates its own protection. This is the frame of mind which needs to be developed for the best execution of the airline pilot's task."

I give a framed copy of that advice to each of my simulator students when they graduate.

[Rananim]

Its not a moral issue.Its a professional one.Manual flying shouldnt prejudice SA and if it does,then you need to improve it by doing more of it.
Good posts from ssg and Tee Emm.
Laziness is part of it,sure.But fear is also part of the equation.And why is there fear?They're pilots for chrissakes.They're afraid because we live in a world of automation and computer junkies and gutless CP's and they've never had the chance to practice and perfect their profession.When you can derive SA quicker from an HSI than a GPS or enter a teardrop hold using only the RMI or fly to minima on the standby instruments without blinking an eye,then you can engage the AP and not until.Old fashioned?Nope,thats the job until someone says otherwise.

[Milt]

I owe an apology to airline pilots for having participated in the degrading of your hands on flying skills.

A generation of Test Pilots, self included, have been imbued with a common desire to make your aircraft as safe as possible for handling by the pilot with the least acceptable flying skill. Our stipulations have been that you stay within the cleared flight and handling envelopes for the type. Having essentially succeeded in the realms of safety and simplicity of handling along came the automatics which our forbears predicted would replace the pilot. You are not there yet but fairly close for a simple A to B.

Somewhere the beancounters were let loose and they promoted simulators and automatics development to the stage where you can now be certified on type by simulation. That did away with the expensive hands on training and the multitude was pleased because the revenue stayed healthy.

But reflect on what it has done to you. Many of you are now admitting to a significant lessening of hands on skills and some even reluctant to accept ATC procedures which require manual flying. Many of you are calling a simple fly by along an empty runway at less than 500 ft unsafe because you now lack the confidence in your residual skill.

I could see the shape of things to come when, way back, I had a few flights in an Airbus A300 out of Toulouse. Initially I reveled in the way that those early automatics were able to do things mostly better than I could. But then, even in those days, the resident TPs were conscious of their own hands on decline and were recommending that operators stipulate a minimum proportion of hand flying. I think Lufthansa's minimum was initially something like 30%.

I will be very selective with my future choice of airlines particularly of those which have or are allowing the development of cultures amongst their pilots who often seem intent on going somewhere to happen!

Is it time for the regulatory authorities to stop the rot by mandating minimal hand flying skills?

[Dream Land]

less than 500 ft unsafe because you now lack the confidence in your residual skill.Sorry, I haven't read any posts that indicated that anyone lacks of confidence to buzz some airport, many of us do uphold the responsibility to use common sense and follow regs, etc.


Is it time for the regulatory authorities to stop the rot by mandating minimal hand flying skills?Regulatory authorities must be there to protect the flying public, with the new advanced automation and experience levels plummeting there is no easy solution to maintain hand flying skills, in our training sessions we have little to no time for hand flying, most time utilized for the abnormals.

[Hobbit]

During my latest OPC the first officer, on his first recurrent check, was given a lower grade than anticipated. He was told that his handling skills were above average but this was unimportant, procedural knowledge was all that really mattered!

[Dream Land]

During my latest OPC the first officer, on his first recurrent check, was given a lower grade than anticipated. He was told that his handling skills were above average but this was unimportant, procedural knowledge was all that really mattered! :ugh::ugh:



Well I remember a time when I had great handling skills, it was in an airplane that didn't have an auto pilot or flight director, so theoretically doing a few legs with automatics off would help considerably, but with RVSM, and GPS STARs and SIDs it may not be in the best interest of safety. :(

[Centaurus]

If you think that handling skills need not be maintained and that automation is the only safe way to fly - then read the accident report on the Adam Air (indonesia) crash to be located on Pprune.Rumours and News.

The autopilot disconnected during the few minutes both pilots were heads down in IMC trouble-shooting an IRS non-normal. Despite automated bank angle warnings, the 737-400 went into an ever steepening spiral dive eventually reaching 490 knots before break-up. . Rate of descent at one point was over 48,000 feet per minute with the crew apparently making wrong recovery action by simply pulling harder in the spiral. Not much future in that. The crew had reportedly not been trained in the simulator in unusual attitude recoveries, but in any case surely in the past they must have passed numerous check flights - mostly on automatics perhaps?

[low n' slow]

Disconnect and enjoy what you trained for! Sometimes I fly whole flights without connecting the AP. A lot of fun. Some might argue that it isn't safe. I argue that
1) I have the training
2) I have a colleague that can help me out with the radio, selections and settings.
3) It gives me experience, extra joy of being at work and will probably make the day when the AP is U/S a lot safer.

And I don't feel bad about connecting it if I need to free some capacity.

That's my 5 cents worth...

/LnS who really enjoys actually flying.

[Pilot Pete]

You have a duty of care....or as you put it a 'moral' requirement to be able to hand fly the aircraft. Early today the autopilot fell out on base leg for no apparent reason and my F/O handled the situation admirably. No less than would be expected of an ATPL holder current on type.

If you can't hand fly it then you have no business being in the flight deck. When the automation fails you are the one who has to ensure the continued safe conduct of your flight....if you never practice hand flying you will not be best placed to do this and it would not surprise me if some clever lawyer managed to sue you for negligence (if you happened to survive).;)

PP