Automation Pilots

[keezy44]

I have been retired for 8 years and never had this problem but my neighbor is an Airbus captain and said his last FO didn't know what to do with the throttles because he never touches them. He lets them work in automated mode. To me that is scarey.

My friend said this is the way it is done now. I hope I never fly in this computer operators airplane. He is unsafe. My friend is from the old school with no autopilots but he says the new FO's have no clue how to handfly an airplane. I think we can teach our new guys how to take over if the automation fails but it is scarey what is happening now.

[westhawk]

Check out the one or more of the threads already running on R&N and Tech Log involving this subject area. Start with Article about lack of hand flying skills - FAA concerned.
(http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/462272-article-about-lack-hand-flying-skills-faa-concerned.html)

[John Citizen]

didn't know what to do with the throttles because he never touches them. He lets them work in automated mode

Unfortunately we are trained to fly this way we and not allowed to touch them.

Manual/hand (no autopilot) flying with/without auto-thrust/auto-throttle is strictly off limits to some captains. I suppose they are just trying to protect themselves. They say they are not prepared to stand up on trial in court and be chastised for not flying on autopilot, in accordance with SOP.

I suppose if they if they want to be ultra conservative, then just don't fly at all :ok:

Fair enough in IMC if the workload is high, but I have had captains even prevent me from manual flying in DAY VMC :eek:

Some tell me that is the way the aircraft has been designed to flown, on auto-pilot as long as possible, and so it should be flown that way. Manual thrust is strongly discouraged.

Should see some of them panic if it's not on autopilot, kind of like its some type of major catastrophic failure.

[Dream Land]

Keezy, it's almost impossible for you to appreciate the modern design of the Airbus unless you actually fly it, I think most of us flying it don't really appreciate it until they have several months experience.

I moved the thrust levers around for twenty years before moving to the bus, I don't miss those days at all, unfortunately the new type of airline operations makes it very complicated to just turn off automatics and practice hand flying, everything we do is monitored and highly scrutinized.

Cheers, D.L.

[A37575]

unfortunately the new type of airline operations makes it very complicated to just turn off automatics and practice hand flying, everything we do is monitored and highly scrutinized.

And the upshot of all that is the tragedy to the Air France A330.

[Denti]

Monitoring or FOQA does in no way forbid hand flying. If your company tells you it does it is the companies very much misguided approach to FOQA. If however it is the fear of being scrutinized because one is not able to hand fly one should ask himself if a seat on the flight deck is really the right place to work.

I know of several world wide operating companies that do use FOQA in some form for the last 20 years and still actively encourage manual operation of the aircraft. All modes of operation have to be known and trained by a proficient pilot, one of those is of course completely manual flight without flight director.

[A37575]

for the last 20 years and still actively encourage manual operation of the aircraft.

Extract from the FCOM used by the airline Germania (737) 20 years ago.

" Full use of automation is required at all times. Only under exceptional circumstances will hand flying be permitted"

While I am sure very few modern airlines would be that restrictive nowadays, there is also little doubt that many operators just pay lip service to the need to keep current at manual flying. Hence the main reason for the increase in Loss of Control incidents and accidents.

[jet-lover]

z tread reminded me a 737 capt. i knew from my previous airline company. if its relatively short leg, he used to make us (FO) fly using raw data only. takeoff to landing no use FMC. it was tough and challenging bcoz most of us just jumped to the fancy automation of 737 after training school. it was indeed a big leap. being part of the younger generation in aviation, i admit MOST of us give little attention to z basics of flying. we r the ones who is gonna b tomorrow's captains and its worrying trend.

[Johnny Tightlips]

I fly with a Captain who regularly disconnects autopilot, autothrottle and flight directors when I am flying without any warning. Ill be flying along then passing usually between FL200 and FL150, I hear the autopilot disconnect and him saying now work out your descent. He also puts a load of crap into the FMC so VNAV is no more use. Back to the 3 times tables with corrections. I also hand flew an entire flight on raw data with him. I really enjoyed it and I learnt so much from him, it's a pity he is part of a very small minority. I usually try and fly a few raw data ILS's per month when possible and only with a few select Captains. I still fly light aircraft so my hand flying skills are not totally gone but I really get bored of all the automatics sometimes.

[Denti]

Well, to quote germania manuals as an example for world wide operating quality airlines is best left uncommented.

@Johnny, i was lucky enough to learn quite a lot from a similar pilot myself, he wouldn't disconnect my autopilot, but he flew every sector manually and raw data and was quite happy to let me do the same whenever i wanted.

In my current outfit manual raw data flight is still actively encouraged, but i do know that several other airlines are a lot more restrictive.

[TangoUniform]

Look at it from management's pov. To them all accidents are "pilot error". Very few managements look for root causes, because it is easier to stop an investigation where the blame is placed on the pilots.

So all of the modern aircraft are engineered to somewhat take the flying equation out. TCAS resolution on the A380 is automated with no pilot input. Managements don't want pilots to interfere with there highly engineered, highly expensive modern aircraft. they write SOPs to use the highest level of automation. Introduce FOQA, and now you have management actually "in the cockpit". We are all interested in keeping our jobs, so we comply.

It's management's risk assessment. But now the industry is starting to see incidents and accidents creeping in due to the above policies. There is nothing currently on the table at most large airlines to abate this trend. It's easy to indentify this risk, but what's the solution? Extra training have costs associated. Manufactures sell their aircraft with the point of less training required. And if the competitor (both airline and manufacturer) can obtain regulatory compliance with les training, what is the incentive to add more training. One extra simulator for upset recovery will not solve the automation issue.

[SR-22]

Then let's say there is accident, where the autopilot failed and the pilot's could not fly the aircraft properly manually and crash. Is that not pilot error also? Due to lack of handling skills? Which is what will happen with these bizarre policies some companies unfortunetely have. Yes of course, pax comfort, safety and all. Still you have to be in shape with flying manually so then you have to practise that.

And landing manually with autothrottles on I find very strange. But then I do not know the Airbus as I am a Boeing man.

Fortunetely my company does not have a policy regarding manual flying vs autopilot.

[Slasher]

But then I do not know the Airbus as I am a Boeing man.

And I'm an Airbus man who's busting his nuts to get back on
a Boeing!

About the 320 AT - there are some safety items built into the
system to prevent yer average 200-hour child of the magenta
line from killing himself. Since SOPs cater to the dumbness of
the lowest common denominator, some outfits require the AT
to be on even for manual flight.

Fortunately the mob I work for doesn't have a firm policy on
it also, other than use that amount of automation suitable for
the task.

[Piltdown Man]

and the pilot's could not fly the aircraft properly manually and crash. Is that not pilot error also? Due to lack of handling skills?

No. That's a fault in the Training and Flight Operations departments of the organisation concerned. Pilots can only do what they have been trained to do and what they practice. If the SOPs forbid manual flying and it's not practiced in the sim you can't expect the pilots to perform. For example, I couldn't knit if my life depended on it.

When things go wrong it's vital to look at the system behind the operation. A classic example of this was the Kings Cross fire. Any public building should be able to tolerate a dropped, burning cigarette. London Underground did not anticipate that one cigarette could set fire to years of rubbish which had accumulated under the (wooden) escalators. The top level of the system did not identify the hazard. Nowadays, not only is smoking forbidden on the Underground but I bet the underneath of every escalator is also scrupulously clean.

PM

[Cloud Chaser]

This is what happens when the industry spends the last decade putting cadets with <200 hours straight onto Airbus'.
Airlines with pilots who don't know how to "fly" :eek:

Sadly this trend is continuing as well.
I thought the AF crash might have changed things, but the industry seemed to brush that under the carpet :ugh:
The Americans have learned though, after that crash, and a few accidents on their own soil, and are making their system even more secure, ensuring people can't get onto an Airbus, or even a Boeing for that matter, until they have real experience :D

Maybe a 320 on the roof of EASA HQ in Köln is what it will take for things to improve in Europe.
I hope the industry wakes up before that happens.
:(

[Slasher]

Actually Mr Chaser I've no problem with the idea of kids with
<200hrs sitting in the cockpit so long as they are confined to
the jump seat and do not touch anything. They can maintain
the flight plan, make position reports in CRZ, pull out/replace
the Jepps for the two pilots, organise the coffees and lunches,
ask any questions whatsover in order to learn the very basics,
and at the absolute discretion of both the FO and captain may
be permited for a limited time during the cruise to occupy the
RHS for some exposure. Of course while all this is going on he
is in the sim being checked to FO standards every 3 months.

After he's completed 1,000hr / 12 months on type (whichever
comes later) in this SO role he can then qualify for the full FO
line training course. During this training there will be at least
150 sectors training, 50 sectors of fine tuning, followed by 20
sectors of various real-life scenarios to prove that he won't kill
himself if something goes wrong (assuming the capt was not
in the cockpit).

If he passes he becomes an asset to the flight deck team and
not an irritating bloody headache. If he screws up he stays in
the jump seat.

Of course all this won't go down well with CEOs, as they only
concern themselves with how much their fat bonuses might
be reduced as a consequence.

[Denti]

Certainly nothing new to 200 hour pilots flying jets. It has been done since world war two by many major airlines and of course the military as well. I would think that airlines like Lufthansa, British Airways, Iberia, KLM, Sabena back then, Swissar and Swiss are not all that bad, despite using primarily 200 hour cadets as entry level pilots.

The point is rigid selection and training. And that is something many p2f airlines skip, selection is money available and training will be done only to a minimum standard to save on money. That is dangerous.

[philippev]

The problem is not the limited flying hours the FO's have, but it depends on their training and their own abilities and ambition to fly manually. I saw young FO's (500 hours experience) fly raw data (TO, cruise, approach, landing) better than their captains (with over 10 000 hours of experience).

So the argument that young pilots need to be in the jumpseat, for the development of their flying skills, is total crap. They need a captain ( and a company) who allows them to fly manually.

[kinteafrokunta]

I wonder when and how you guys are going to get it in your heads.......automation and automation management in flying is the present and future. All those self deluding posts about how great your manual flying skills are nothing but self aggrandizing hot air. Take a time machine back to the past, take a bullock cart to work, use quilt pens, etc.
Maybe, take the road of the Amish.

[kinteafrokunta]

You all like to go on ego trips. When I use a computer or a type writer it doesn't mean I have forgotten how to write, spell or count. It means I become proficient at using the equipment and try never get into a situation when I need to revert to using quilt pens, parchment etc. If you want to hone your so great flying skills, go join the red arrows or do crop dusting. I am flying an airliner and I use automation to the hilt to get the results I want. When automation do fail, if it is purely a technical failure and not " ace pilot induced ", I have the reasonable skills and proficiency to deal with it. For I would never ever try to get into a ace pilot induced automation problem because I bloody make sure I am thoroughly proficient in automation use, ( with the the said conditions ) Given Sully's heroic scenario, I could have reasonably done what he did...only thing is that I wouldn't go crowing about it every time the automation debate thingy comes out.

[Denti]

And that attitude is exactly why currently the biggest reason for hull losses is loss of control in flight.

[grounded27]

OK from a different perspective. I have been alerted to the cost's of a CAT3B approach is the cost more so a result of a long stabilized approach or associated airport fee's. I understand the necessity of declaring A CAT3 approach/landing in minimums (airport should guarantee a protected RWY) but how many of you guys operate a 3B without advising tower in clear weather having enough distance to do so on a regular basis. Usually rollout is fine (I imagine)?

The guys I flew with only did one for aircraft or pilot recurrency as the norm, this being more than a decade ago.

[Armchairflyer]

Absolutely d'accord that the disdain of the (self-proclaimed?) stick-'n-rudder-elite toward the "button pushers" who have no idea about real flying somehow misses the boat. Indeed, system skills, aircraft knowledge, CRM etc. may well be more important than golden hands. Still, a pilot (whether LHS or RHS) not being able to comfortably hand-fly the airliners he/she usually operates, including being able to get such an aircraft gone astray safely back into the flight envelope is IMHO a rather sad and questionable state of affairs.

[kinteafrokunta]

Having not ride a bicycle for a couple of years did not make me forget how to pedal one. So not having done candelles, loops, spins and barrel rolls for ages does not make me a dodo...I do fly manually when the situation allows it ( non PRNAV SIDs and STARs ) and I do my recurrent training and checks flying manually as much as possible. However to hear people go on and on and on with anecdotes after anecdotes of their " superior " acey flying abilities because they fly manually every second of their sortie is an insufferable experience!

The automation is not there to make life easier......in fact it makes life the much more harder; one has to be ever vigilant monitoring the performance of the autoflight system to ensure that there are no degradation in automation performance. It's like a frontline soldier ever watchful for snipers! And one has to be on top of automation use ( button pushing, if you may ) to detect automation degradation. A lot of automation degradation are due to performance degradation in other ancialllary or peripherial systems; one has to understand the interface and deal with it intelligently. Of course one can just click off the automation and revert to basic manual control, flying stick and rudder; well fine and good if you can do so by not busting PRNAV limits. However there are other automatic modes to mitigate the automation degradation...eg if you lose LNAV in PRNAV operations, you can use track sel with cross check of track deviation to attain almost equal performance capability in PRNAV airspace. I have seen stick and rudder aces immediately clicking of the autopilot and go manual using " superior stick and rudder techniques " only to mess up the whole operation and then swearing on their grand aunties graves that " automation is crap and we should stick to manual flying skills all the time ". I have seem in conducting sim checks that a lot of problems are caused by such stick and rudder aces who fouled up machine-human interface; in other words, ace pilot induced automation performance degradation.

Automation is there to optimise aircraft operations to facilitate economic operations, enhance ATC airspace utilisation, and extend airplane life with smooth operation. In economic operations and optimal airspace operations it reduces carbon emissions and noise pollution for environmental protection. Automation does not make a pilot's life easier...I hope the whole world gets it!

[Slasher]

And that attitude is exactly why currently the biggest reason for hull losses is loss of control in flight
.
I agree Denti, and I don't think our "sim checker" here (quote [sic] "I have seem in conducting sim checks...") is as old as his details say. Just look at his similar language in the above post again for the giveaway...sounds more like a child of the magenta line with a chip on his shoulder to me.

More proof of youth? -

...it reduces carbon emissions and noise pollution for environmental protection.

QED.

[grounded27]

The automation is not there to make life easier......in fact it makes life the much more harder; one has to be ever vigilant monitoring the performance of the autoflight system to ensure that there are no degradation in automation performance

Really? how is this any different from scanning steam driven instruments? I am a part of the old school Nintendo generation but WTF?

For me related to the unanswered post above, I question the modern pilot's opinion on landing an aircraft. Clear day stable approach, how often do you select the land tile? Reading another thread where pilots question SIM evaluations w/o a strong crosswind etc, just how experienced are the automationpilot at landing in adverse conditions? Sure automation = efficiency in flight, does it show up in your annual bonus for fuel savings? I have no issue with autonav just with completing a safe flight.

[A37575]

Automation is there to optimise aircraft operations to facilitate economic operations, enhance ATC airspace utilisation, and extend airplane life with smooth operation.

Interesting opinion but not that of a Boeing Company instructor pilot who once stated that Boeing's philosophy is to design aeroplanes assuming pilots have no aeronautical skills. Makes for a nice safe aeroplane until something goes wrong

[Ta4eiqwailo]

Oh dear, kunte what have you done? Riled up a whole load of geriatrics; you surely ruffled up their matted downs which are more suitable for quilts than flying! Flame away!

[grounded27]

automation and automation management in flying is the present and future.

Sure is, and when it is developed to an acceptable level we won't need pilots anymore.

[RainingLogic]

If your not prepared to hand fly a dark aircraft, your an idiot.

Just because the industry has completely sold out by putting kids the cockpit doesn't justify swinging the morality to that position.

[aviatorhi]

Kinteafrokunta,

"Pilots" like you sicken me.

[Denti]

I do agree that a gung-ho "manual above all else" attitude is not balanced either. However a proficient pilot has to be able to operate his aircraft in all available modes which includes no automation at all.

Since my employer is of the opinion the we are all rather average pilots he encourages to keep our manual flying skills up by using them as usual average pilots quite often get rusty when they don't use their manual flying skills. I have to say it is one of the rare things where i agree. It is far too easy to follow the lure of laziness into the realms of completely automatic flight, after all, its there to be used, right? And then one of these days the automatics do not work anymore (for example because the autopilot stab trim motor breaks down) and it becomes a very frightening day indeed when one of those pilots tries to do manual flight at FL390 without having done that for the last 15 years.

[Jetney]

Whilst I do not agree with a lot of kinteafrokunta's posts, I think his/her last 2 posts on automation are rational and reasonable.


"Pilots" like you sicken me

Posts like the above are plainly inflammatory and debase any valid argument you have.

No where in her/his posts did she/he said to totally disregard manual flying. I guess many posters taking a hit at him/her are blinded by pure bias and pre conceived prejudice. She/he just maintains that automation is to be used to maximise performance in efficiency, economics and ATC requirement. Common guys, you are making fools of yourself by going overboard with the " manual fllying " thingy. Re read her/his 2 previous posts.

[Junkflyer]

Autopilot/a/t makes life easier for me. I do a lot of hand flying, but must be misguided since the automation does not my workload harder.

[Akali Dal]

Kinte probably meant that automation do make long hours of hand flying easier if one uses the auto systems but during critical phases of flight such as approach and landings, manual flying allows the pilot to " feel " the performance of the airplane, hence it is easier to sense what is wrong if there is a problem as the whole body and senses are in " sync " with the task at hand. Flying the automatics remove this " Synergy " with the aircraft, so it is in fact more difficult and one has to be ever vigilant visually and aurally especially on the Airbus.

Well, having said that I think all you mischievious fellas know what he meant but since he burst " your superiority bubble " there is nothing more to do than to needle him...tsk, tsk, tsk. Big loss of face:O:=

[Slasher]

Common guys,

You sexist unPC ape! :eek:

[ALI-SAFARI-IR.]

ITS AN IMPORTANT NOTE THAT WE MUST KNOW..

in emergency landing of A.320 IN THE HODSON RIVER IN NEW YORK..

COMPUTERS WAS CRAZY AND PILOT WAS HERO ....

all of passengers save with pilot skill at that flight...

best way is automation but a kind of automation that whenever pilot tried

he can control the fly...

specially in emergency pilots are better than electronic cheaps....

[grounded27]

First off I will not discredit Sully and crew.

ITS AN IMPORTANT NOTE THAT WE MUST KNOW..

in emergency landing of A.320 IN THE HODSON RIVER IN NEW YORK..

COMPUTERS WAS CRAZY AND PILOT WAS HERO ....

All modern jet aircraft with a Humanoid at the controls need to have automation disconnect functions, I guarentee those guys were scared beyond belief and were professional enough to supress emotion and operate based on knowledge and experience. Nothing CRAZY about self preservation based upon the above said plus the factor of luck when combined with... Heroic by chance, none the less suppose they deserve the title.

[Amitabh Belacan]

Oops, he forgot his " ditching switch " but still got the accolades! Evryone loves a hero!

[Junkflyer]

I'm sure you would have done much better.