Hand Flying vs Automatics ?

[rmac]

I note that there has been a lot of discussion recently about hand flying vs automatic, especially reference the TK accident.

Found the following youtube video while linking from this site related to another post.

LIgKiuFXZk8


Would the professional proponents of either side of the argument like to offer an opinion on the pro's and con's of this approach and what he/she may have been up to at the time.

The computer with a voice doesn't seem to like it very much ............

[fox niner]

That particular landing is in Corfu if I am not mistaken. (LGKR) The landing looks pretty cool.....However IMHO that guy was taking unnecessary risks. Not stabilized at 500'. pull up pull up etc.

All valid reasons to go-around. He is busting all the safety barriers by flying like that.

[rogerg]

They are just doing a tight visual circuit which the computer does not understand. Its programmed for an ILS!! Bit of a no no these days.

[bullet190]

Well - there are good and bad hand flown approaches as there are good and bad Auto-pilot approaches.

Most of the professional pilots here who recommend the occasional hand flown approach would certainly NOT recommend doing this ! :=

[SNS3Guppy]

There's not enough information provided in that short clip, and it's out of context.

[fox niner]

oww come on!
there is more than enough information in that clip!
-more than 30 degrees of bank was applied, (bank angle bank angle)
-the sink rate was exessive (pull up pull up)
-When the wings are finally more or less level, it takes only 15 seconds to touchdown
-during those 15 seconds, sinkrate warnings go off so the sinkrate is at least 1200fpm.
-15 seconds at 1200fpm is 1200/4=300 feet when he rolls his wings level. And that after a tight turn at more than 30 degrees of bank!
-there is a large trim input on short short final, you can hear the trimwheel whizzing like crazy

OK that is the info in this little movie. What a show-off pilot he must be!:ugh:

[Pugilistic Animus]

The Auto callout/ EGWPS were perhaps being a pissy, a severe clear VFR approach no need for IFR parameters... I know sack him:hmm:
---- he was just 'jiggering' it a little on the base turn, but he remained within the distance and obviously made the corrections and his bank angle was not actually dangerous,.. so like SNS3Guppy said!!!

[Rainboe]

It doesn't 'look' out of order to me. It does sound 'out of order'! It sounds to me like the 'extras' have been added- the sound doesn't seem right and the background sound appears to change when the alerts are going off. I think it is probably fake- with 'enhanced sound effects', posted here for outrage!

You will not convince me that those sound effects happened then! The advent of the digital imaging age meant you could no longer believe any photograph. The 'youtube' age means you can't trust any video now! Don't swallow everything you see blindly!

[rmac]

Rainboe,

Judging by the youtube title it certainly wasn't posted there in outrage, more like in awe !

I also didn't post it here in outrage, more for an opinion, happy to hand fly that type of approach in my Crusader, just wondered if it was advocated for the professionals flying heavier tin. Also have in the back of the mind a question about whether this might be a "customer friendly" manoeuvre if the aircraft was full of pax, or might it have been empty on a positioning flight ?

Your feedback on the sound is appreciated, but I can't see a clear motive for adding it, but OK, assume it was, how do you professionals feel about the visuals either with or without pax, especially given recent discussions on the subject.

Regarding the earlier comment that this was Corfu, we had an Air Slovakia 737 parked outside our hangar the summer before last with fist sized holes in the tail end of the fuselage from over flaring a hot arrival in Corfu, which the crew chose to ignore and flew the aircraft, full of pax, back to Stefanik rather than admit that they screwed up, writing up the accident as happening on arrival at Stefanik. Unfortunately for them there were too many witnesses in Corfu to get away with it. :rolleyes:

Thanks

Rmac

[Right Way Up]

Rainboe,
I agree the sounds "seem" to be added.
Regarding the approach the time from wings level to touchdown is 15 secs which suggests from they had approx 30 degrees bank on at roughly 200ft, an unstable approach in most companies nowadays.

[Rainboe]

This looks to me like Corfu. You still cannot see the runway at about 700' and a tight turn onto final at low altitude is required. I have watched that video several times. I have to say .......it looks normal to me. The runway aspect (when it is visible) does not change, despite alleged 'sink rate warnings'. Don't rely on the top of the window frame to assess bank angle- it slopes back sharply. I'm sorry, I think it was a normal bank angle, normal roll out onto final, normal flare and landing. I can tell when it's out of order- I'ver been flying 737s for 10 years. That looks right.

I ask you- listen when the alleged warnings are going off- the background air noise decreases to less than half when the warnings have been added, then comes on strong again.

You've been 'you tubed' by some mindless idiot with movie editing software and a sound file of cockpit warnings. It's nonsense. Flight recorders record this stuff- do you really think pilots allowed to fly in European airspace would ignore warnings like that? Why do you think they are apparently so unconcerned? Because they can't hear the warnings- they are not there- added later!

[Reluctant737]

In my opinion, there was nothing wrong with that approach whatsoever, sounds real, fake or whatever.

No risks were taken (unless you live in Tellytubby land), and so what if there was more than 30 degrees of bank? That's what was required to get the aeroplane in, and it was all done safely.

Was anybody hurt or killed? Was the aeroplane damaged? No.

Blimey, some people really are reliant on the autopilot aren't they...

This is why it's best to recruit pilots who can actually fly the aeroplane, and spend less time working out when they could describe a time they effectively... etc

Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[rmac]

Reluctant 737

You might be right. However your post and your age tempts me to ask if you have got around to scaring yourself yet ?

[Reluctant737]

rmac,

I appreciate that, and understand my words are somewhat contrary to those more experienced than myself.

I've never had a real scare at work, that is, flying the bigger aeroplanes.

I've had a couple in general aviation, but ultimately, I see what you're getting at, and I am very much a member of the club that understands the inherant dangers in aviation if disrespected.

My view on the above video is that it is, as far as aeroplanes go, fairly docile. I would consider it dangerous if the nose was pointing high above the horizon during that turn with a noticable sideslip, now that would start ringing alarm bells. But it appeared (from what I could see on the video) well coordinated.

As an aviator, I am sure you will appreciate the following comment - in flying, going by numbers is great, but there is also that 'seat of the pants' feeling, and I have a little rule... if it feels as though you are flying along rails, and the numbers agree, then it's safe. Contrary to that, the numbers can be perfect, and yet if things feel 'sloppy', that is a good first indication that something is wrong. For example, flying through a microburst, the instruments may take a second or so to register, but you can immediate feel that something is not quite right, and you react accordingly. Of course this only applies when VMC, and I'd certainly classify that video as reckless if performed under IMC.

I think that is what makes a good pilot. I suppose you could also rewrite that as, feeling at one with the aeroplane?

And watching that video, I didn't get that feeling.

[vapilot2004]

I thought the same as Rainboe.

Also, to my eyes, the approach appeared to be very much in control during the duration of that short clip.

[DownIn3Green]

To answer the question, learn to fly your jet manually under all conditions, then and only then should you learn to let the airplane fly you...

[Jet_A_Knight]

It doesn't 'look' out of order to me. It does sound 'out of order'! It sounds to me like the 'extras' have been added- the sound doesn't seem right and the background sound appears to change when the alerts are going off. I think it is probably fake- with 'enhanced sound effects', posted here for outrage!

As an ex-sound engineer, I can tell you those sounds were going on in that cockpit. The change in ambient noise has more to do with the compression applied to video camera microphones than any doctoring, as far as I can tell - and that used to be my area of expertise.

As to the approach.... severe clear VMC - each to his own, I suppose. If you get away with that many bank angle and EGPWS alerts that late in the circuit often enough, I suppose the risk is diminished.:hmm:

[Rainboe]

Well I don't think it is real. I think the sound effects have been added later and the program reduced the total sound when the effects went on which explains why the ambient noise went down and up each time. Despite pull ups, i saw absolutely no pitch changes that would result in such an approach. bank does not look excessive bearing in mind the window you are looking out of. There is no apparent reponse in the cockpit to the alleged calls, and the runway picture looks normal at all times. It's fake fake fake. These idiots are doing this sort of stuff all the time.

[dany4kin]

As a non-flyer I will not comment on the approach itself.

With reference to what Rainboe is saying about the change in background volume with the alerts being sounded, some digital camera microphones seem only to pick up the clearest sound. So when the voice alert is occuring which I assume is quite loud, the microphone will pick this up clearly at the 'expense' of reducing the slipstream noise.

As the voice alerts stop, the microphone becomes more sensitive to the ambient noise levels and the clarity of the slipstream noise becomes more apparent. (Jet A Knight I didn't see your post before but this is what I mean)

In Rainboe's defence however, I have found a clip, again on youtube, that is a perfectly normal approach with some added sound effects to mislead the audience... so it does happen...

YouTube - Landing with upset airplane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdJxgY0YM4)

[deltayankee]

Your feedback on the sound is appreciated, but I can't see a clear motive for adding it


There are at least two clear motives:

1. To make it more exciting (this is YouTube!)

2. To replace a non-existent or unusable audio recording.

In video production it is normal practice to embellish sounds -- all the footsteps and lock clicks you hear in movies are added leter.

[rmac]

I can't speak for you heavy metal folks, but only as a light twin driver who has found himself on occasion squeezing in to an awkward field. Like landing to the north at my old home field Seletar in Singapore, where due to a very small zone squeezed in by the military airfield next door, a very close downwind at 1500' was followed by a constantly descending turn to the threshold at 35', I could often find myself with a high angle of bank, adding in a bit more power to help her round the corner, as a result rolling out a bit high then coming off the power to let her sink a bit faster towards the threshold in a constant attitude and then adding back a bit to cushion the descent just before flare, with the benefit that pistons and props give almost instant reaction to power changes.

As I do not fly 737, I cannot judge if there was a similar effect in action here possibly leading to the auto callouts ? while all was very well under control.

I did read somewhere, however, that passengers feel bank angles and pitch changes to be far in excess of what they are in reality with the caution that one should be careful to minimise that effect with pax on board.

My reason for posting this was due to the amount of posts I have read related to stabilised approaches, hand and auto flying to tight limits etc etc and perhaps someone could offer a factual comparison, with numbers, as to how this approach stacks up against the average stabilised approach criterea ?

[Nice flaps]

In Rainboe's camp on this one. All looks normal from what you can see.

Reluctant 737 - I don't mean this to sound like a personal attack or patronising, but having seen your contributions on another couple of threads you seem remarkably (over) confident and opinionated for a young man of 20 just taking the very first steps of your career.
Blimey, some people really are reliant on the autopilot aren't they

It's nice to hear your little rules. I wonder how many times you've flown through a microburst. These little nuggets are most probably things that your MCC instructor shared with you when you did your course in the last year or so....:yuk:

I would consider it dangerous if the nose was pointing high above the horizon during that turn with a noticable sideslip
and so what if there was more than 30 degrees of bank? That's what was required to get the aeroplane in

This ain't a Cessna 150 old chap. Are you really a professional pilot?

Is it just me or is this website sadly going downhill..:rolleyes:

[Reluctant737]

Nice Flaps,

I appreciate where you're coming from - and yes, I only have just under 800 hours on the 737, but my TT is now touching on 2,000 hours. Since the age of 12 I've been submerged in the world of general aviation, and as such have built up a sound appreciation for my career prior to entering into the jet world.

There was a lot of stir at my FTO for entering onto an integrated course with so many hours, but it felt like the right decision at the time considering where I wanted to be.

I am not over confident - I am very aware of my own limitations, but remember that 50% of my opinions on here are self formed, the other 50% are what I have learnt off others in the past 8 years being in and around aeroplanes.

Don't judge a can of beans purely on what it says on the front of the tin :ok:

p.s. No, it aint a 150, but it's still an aeroplane, operating on the same principles of physics. People rely far too much on automation, and my 800 hours thus far has seen some tiddler microbursts, plus a nasty shock flying into a reciprocal jetstream at 130 kts (nothing about that on the SWC, cheers met man). And I'll always defend we get to utilise our skills moreso than perhaps other airlines, as we route into some previously unexplored 'strips' (I hesitate to call them runways, as far as my 737 goes). Believe you me, I am a confident hands on pilot - I've put a PA28 into Lundy if that says anything!? With no damage or loss of life! Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be any Chuck Yeagar or Amy Johnsson, but I understand my limits and operate within them. Going back to Lundy, it took three approaches before I decided it was safe to land. If I had been overconfident, as you put it, I'd have flown the thing into the ground the first time, probably wrecked the aeroplane on the brick wall running across the field and sent the resultant debris into the sea...

I don't gamble with other peoples' lives.

[FCS Explorer]

yes, i know corfu and yes, i got some thousand hours on the 737
watched it three times
don't like it
cavok, no one killed, nothing damaged? poor excuse.
audio redone? -nah, still can hear the trim wheel and the general flying noise
redone for extra exictement? - nah, there are more spectacular gpws-callouts available.
company SOPs? most likely busted. established below 500' (our OLD gate, now 1000)
futhermore coming in flat/shallow the last 200 feet (the "picture" is wrong)
and the 50-40-30-20-10 calls *seem* to come faster than they should, indicating to a high sink rate
also
the "camera nod" on touchdown more than usual in landing vids
and
check out the time counter: wings level at 12 seconds, crossing thres at roughly 23 seconds -> 11 seconds @(usually) 800-900ft/min = 155'
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

no objections if it had been a 172....

[rmac]

FCS

Or, if you track your calculation back the other way and the wings were levelled at a higher altitude, then sink rate would need to increase well beyond 8-900ft/min to get down to the threshold in that time.

Even discounting the sounds, surely it has to be one or the other, doesn't it ?

[Nice flaps]

R737

Fair play to you, I may have been a tad harsh. Too many earlies = Mr Grumpy today...:p

Some of your posts just smacked slightly of someone who hasn't reached the "I've just realised how much I don't yet know" point. From my experience, a lot of people's confidence seems to grow disproportionately in the early stages of their career and then usually they reach a point (1000-3000 hours, depending on their personality and ability) where their awareness suddenly increases and their cocksureness softens a bit. After that point we tend to worry more and more about things and collect grey hairs for fun!

Regards the 150 comment, I just meant that the nose doesn't have to be pointing high above the horizon during that turn with a noticable sideslip for it to be unacceptable in an airline environment (not commenting on this video).

I fully agree with you, though, that there should not be an over-reliance on automatics. Hand flying skills should be just as valued now as they have ever been. I think this thread relates more to acceptable stable approach criteria and safety culture, however, than manual v automatics.
If people put themselves in a position where they need to fly like a god to land the aircraft then they have effectively removed their safety margin. Personally I quite like a safety margin, because I'm human..;)

[fireflybob]

Not commenting on whether the sound is genuine but the thread title "Hand Flying vs Automatics" is a good question.

As professional pilots we should be able execute a hand flown visual approach with proficiency. The trouble is some operators seem to discourage such approaches these days. When on the B 737-200 it was common to hand fly all the way to top of climb and then from top of descent to landing, if the conditions and the environment was suitable to do so. I have even flown to Tenerife and back from the UK with no autopilot because it was unserviceable!

Am I against automation? Not at all. Am I against OFDM keeping an eye on what we are doing? Once again not at all. But we have to ask the question how can we retain our basic flying skills without practice. Also in an emergency you might have to maneuvre the a/c beyond the normal "limits". I am just glad that early on in my career I flew with pilots who really could fly the a/c and were able to pass on their skills and advice so that I could also do the same. Sadly we now have a generation of pilots coming along who have not had the benefit of practising same. I believe this is not good for future flight safety.

[beachbumflyer]

I'm glad to see that there are still guys in the airlines having some fun
these days.

[Nicholas49]

Do short-haul pilots have better opportunities to maintain their hand-flying skills than long-haul pilots? I imagine with so much of the flight spent in the cruise, there is limited opportunity to fly the aircraft manually except during climb out and descent. What are your thoughts?

[FCS Explorer]

easy equation. if your average leg is btw 0:45hr and 3:30 you'll get more T/Os and APPs/LDs than the guy with the 10hr legs. of course, before you get to (/end up ;)) long haulin' you do some of the "smaller stuff"

[JimbosJet]

I haven't seen a Corfu chart recently, but I believe the Albanian border is just to the North of Corfu and I know you have to remain "close" to the field to avoid airspace infringements.

I'm not going to judge the merits or otherwise of this guy's (or girls) approach, but could it possibly be a reason that it was kept tight and hence contributed to the outcome we see here?

<edit> Just watched it again and yes, perhaps it was a bit "spirited".

[Tmbstory]

Re your post # 21:

Not sure what you are looking for, I used Seletar airport for fourteen years, on a fairly constant basis, in a variety of piston, turboprop and business jets. Did not find too much of a problem, either landing to the north or south. A good landing is helped by a good and accurate approach.

A decending final turn to 35 feet would not have impressed myself or my VIP passengers one little bit. It would be a certain change of job!

Tmb

[rmac]

tmb 35'is the runway threshold not wings level and indicative that 1500' needs to be lost in a tight downwind to final turn with no defined base. No surprise that while most traffic would depart in both directions jets seemed to prefer landing to the south as this would allow a straight in stable approach. As you appear to have experienced this approach in a variety of categories would you care to comment on the different stability criterea and challenges. Also which piston did you fly there and when maybe i know you?

[Tmbstory]

rmac:

I operated to and from Seletar from 1972 to 1986, using a Cessna 421 (piston), Cessna 441 (turboprop), Cessna 550 (corporate jet ) and HS125 (corporate jet).

On one occasion in the C441 I had to carry out a OEI landing to the south, I was impressed by the lack of drag during the flare and landing.

Hope this helps.

Tmb

[Stan Woolley]

I watch circling approaches nearly every working day in the 737 sim.

I think the video is genuine.

In my company I think the guy would probably be fired.

[A37575]

To answer the question, learn to fly your jet manually under all conditions, then and only then should you learn to let the airplane fly you...

Ideally yes. But it will never happen apart from a few minutes per hour in the simulator. Realistically most of your waking time in the simulator and the real thing will be on automatics. Manual flying scares the beejeesus out of most captains and they prefer the warm and fuzzy comfort of laid-back knob twiddling automatics. This will not change ever.

[Silvershadow]

I think the crew can expect a call from the OFDM people. Airlines expect a stable approach below 500ft these days.