Distracted crew let Q400 descend towards terrain

[Squawk7777]

link (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/distracted-crew-let-q400-descend-towards-terrain-373118/)

Distracted crew let Q400 descend towards terrain

By: David Kaminski-Morrow London

Pilots of a Flybe Bombardier Q400 allowed the aircraft to drift below its glidepath after becoming distracted by an electrical failure that had affected the captain's displays.

It descended to about 700ft (210m) above terrain, while still 8nm (15km) from the runway, before the ground-proximity warning system ordered the crew to pull up.

The Q400 had been conducting an instrument landing system approach to Exeter's Runway 26 on 11 September 2010. Its autopilot was engaged and the aircraft had been descending to a selected altitude of 2,600ft.

At about 3,300ft the engine display indicated a processor failure. While the first officer's primary displays remained normal, the captain's showed absent speed bugs and minimum descent altitude setting.

The captain tried various techniques to restore the display, including switching the air-data computer source before reverting to the original when this failed to have an effect. However, the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch says that this reversion, by design, cancelled all previously-selected flight-director modes - including the altitude selection. This deactivation "went unnoticed" by the crew, it adds, and the effect was to allow the Q400 to descend through its cleared level.

"While attempting to resolve an unfamiliar failure which had resulted in unexpected cockpit effects, both pilots became distracted from the primary roles of flying and monitoring the aircraft," it says.

Having failed to capture the cleared altitude the aircraft continued to descend until the ground-proximity warning system issued a terrain alert - prompting the two pilots to look up - followed a few seconds later by a "pull up" command.

There had been no action to correct the flightpath before the warning, suggesting the pilots were "not aware of the extent of the deviation" and were not monitoring the Q400's track or its flight-mode annunciator, says the AAIB.

It adds that the crew did not follow standard procedures after the terrain warning.

The AAIB points out it has investigated two previous incidents involving Flybe Q400s, in which the aircraft descended below their cleared level during approach owing to inappropriate mode selection and inadequate annunciator monitoring.

Flybe, which gave the pilots additional training before returning them to duty, has since introduced a new flight-operations monitoring programme involving observers in the cockpit.

[DOVES]

Any similarity to Tristar Eastern 401 in Everglades on Dec 29th 1972?
But with a little difference: "Saint GPWS!!!"

[Tjosan]

Or SAS 1969 LAX: Scandinavian Airlines Flight 933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_933)

[safelife]

In the Q400 it doesn't take a processor failure to have you descending towards terra firma.
A single click on the pitch wheel while on the glideslope does, if unnoticed, the same.
Been there, done that... :uhoh:

[pigboat]

There had been no action to correct the flightpath before the warning, suggesting the pilots were "not aware of the extent of the deviation" and were not monitoring the Q400's track or its flight-mode annunciator, says the AAIB.

Somebody forgot FTFA.

[BugSpeed]

New story, old news.

[DOVES]

HELLO!:
"DOES ANYBODY HAVE CONTROL?"
(while passengers seating in 0A and 0B quarrel?)

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/483165-flybe-pilots-fired-after-flight-deck-row.html
https://www.newscore.com/


Incident: Flybe DH8D at Waterford on Jun 5th 2012, runway excursion during backtracking (http://avherald.com/h?article=450ac2fc&opt=0)

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/06/01/flight-passenger-terror-as-cockpit-blaze-forces-glasgow-bound-plane-to-make-emergency-landing-86908-23881832/

[fade to grey]

if you look at the AAIB bulletins, hardly a month goes past without a Flybe DHC8 getting a mention.
I,ve no idea if this is because of the high volume of flights,fatigue from the schedule or the generally low crew experience.

[DCS99]

@ fade to grey

At least the incidents are reported - unlike many cases in the Medical or Shipping professions. I think I'm still proud my employer (not BE) has an "open" policy and any incidents are reported.

[Snigs]

We all practice for the major failures in the sim, this goes to show that even a small component failure, in itself not critical, can lead to another of the holes in the "Swiss Cheese" to line up.

It's a lesson that should be learned by all professional pilots, don't be seduced by the "it won't happen to me" syndrome...... however good you are, it just might!

[Artic Monkey]

fade to grey

Generally low crew experience? I don't think that was a factor in this case. There's a hell of alot less experience in another major UK operator which we all know about, and Snigs is correct, you are only one flight away from your next incident so if we think it won't happen to us then think again.

[Tyreplug]

The experience levels on the Q400 are currently high. This could have happened to the greatest 'ace' that contributes to pprune considering the machine that was involved - also what not appears to be mentioned is that I believe it was a CAVOK visual approach

[Tourist]

Ah, yes.

I believe those CAVOK approaches can be tricky....

[scrubba]

Tourist,

Perhaps a more useful description would be "seductive" - many a good driver has been sucked in because "it was only a visual approach"!

[haejangkuk]

Tyreplug
*
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Holiday Inn Mostly
Posts: 29
The experience levels on the Q400 are currently high. This could have happened to the greatest 'ace' that contributes to PPRuNe considering the machine that was involved - also what not appears to be mentioned is that I believe it was a CAVOK visual approach


Wow, you are so, so kind! Now if that happens in the developing world, then all hell breaks loose with all kinds of insinuations and innuendos about competency and discipline.

[hikoushi]

A more appropriate response which is unfortunately not trained as often as it should be in our modern, automation-dependent world would be the old "click-click, click-click". Those of us from before the MPL / G1000 generation learned to fly on aircraft with no "bugs" on the airspeed indicators; most of us learned to fly an ILS raw-data with a pair of crosshairs or maybe an HSI in more recent times. When flight directors, FMAs, speed and heading bugs etc go kittywompus on us we should still be able to "step down" the automation and handfly comfortably on basics. A missed approach is another safe option. It seems like these skills are discouraged in most SOPs and training departments these days, and that is a disservice to pilots who could benefit from maintaining those skills, such as this situation.

Have the chart in front of you. If you lose your G/S or ALT SEL on your FMA, turn it all off and fly the airplane like it was a very fast Seminole. This is how it should be trained and skill should be mandated. We have to log autolands to maintain currency in my company; why not mandate log at least one raw-data fully hand-flown approach (in VMC even!) every 90 days? Probably get laughed out of the building to bring that one up to a training department anywhere in the world these days, which is sad. If that were trained to proficiency, instinct, and recency to the extent autoflight is, these kind of incidents would decrease.

Never going to happen. Oh well, starting to show my age, I guess!:eek:

[Capn Bloggs]

Great post, hikoushi. :D

[VNAVPTH]

A more appropriate response which is unfortunately not trained as often as it should be in our modern, automation-dependent world would be the old "click-click, click-click". Those of us from before the MPL / G1000 generation learned to fly on aircraft with no "bugs" on the airspeed indicators; most of us learned to fly an ILS raw-data with a pair of crosshairs or maybe an HSI in more recent times. When flight directors, FMAs, speed and heading bugs etc go kittywompus on us we should still be able to "step down" the automation and handfly comfortably on basics. A missed approach is another safe option. It seems like these skills are discouraged in most SOPs and training departments these days, and that is a disservice to pilots who could benefit from maintaining those skills, such as this situation.

Evidence to support FTOs or TRTOs not following the EASA/JAA syllabus? Or just an ill informed two pennies worth?

As for the airline in question, my understanding is the autopilot on the dash 8 is so unuser friendly, full of latent errors, that pilots hand fly more often than most.

But as a general case for modern aviation, I see your point.

[BUGS/BEARINGS/BOXES]

A very nice video. It's interesting to see it was filmed in 97 and yet the same message is having to be consistently repeated. Every SESMA review carries the same messages, along with recurrent check debriefs/learning points to the respective fleets.

I still have my copy of "What's it doing now?" issued by my company. It highlighted the differences in errors due to lower SA as a result of flying the glass cockpit version of the 737 as opposed to the trabbie (200). Those in the steam powered version had far higher levels of SA. But the technology was supposed to make it the other way round. Still to this day aircraft automatics get miss managed, due to over dependence at critical times, and less critical. Pilots are more out of the loop than ever due to 'bean counter style' Flt ops/safety policies implemented by some training regimes and the likes. Fancier versions of NOTECHS have been issued since, yet the training, whilst invaluable, gets left behind by back side covering policies that aim to ridicule pilots for making mistakes when the automatics were available. Yet when distractions with automatics engaged lead to Loss of SA and resultant errors, more blame is placed on pilots for forgetting to FLY THE AIRCRAFT. An interesting modern day conundrum, but one that does little for safety.
Ultimately it is incumbent on companies and individual to keep skill levels up and awareness at all times. Appropriate support for development of these skills is vital. Without appropriate policies and training support, AIRMANSHIP IS LOST.

I have read with interest the thread where line captains complain about having to 'train/babysit' new ab-initio pilots on the line. The best place for them to hone their skills is on the aircraft! They require the right supporting manager(CAPTAIN) to help guide them. In time they become 'in tune' with the aircraft and far better pilots. The simulator is no airplane! But then a C152 or PA 34 is no dash 8/ airbus or 737!
More emphasis these days is placed at the ab-initio level on not being heads down reprogramming the box at bust times! ANC and PPP are the keys for priorities. But as one young lad a few years back remarked, post event, when I asked him what colour the van beside the runway was ( you have already guessed where his attention was) "I was so used to doing it on Flt sim when I was getting ready to do my training, I wanted to prove I could do it in the real thing". He learnt a big lesson that day, so did I.

[fade to grey]

Tyreplug - Are you insane ? the Captain had 3000hrs total, 1500 on type and was 44 years old. I don't consider that alot of experience to be honest, and the age against hours indicates a 'career changer'.

I think low experience combined with a demanding crappy TP, multi sector hard fatiguing days are the main reasons the AAIB bulletin should be renamed 'Flybe monthly'.

Arctic , I know who you mean, but the FOs may be fresh off the money making schemes but the Capts have more than 3000 hrs ?...... Actually I don't know if you are talking about the low cost harp boys.

Calm down, I know this sort of thing happens to anyone, it's just it all seems to happen to Flybe more....

[Deep and fast]

At least they keep their jobs and receive assistive training.
My old company would have carried out a full and thorough investigation and then sacked them!

[hikoushi]

When we all learned instruments, our instructors (or at least my instructor) always told us to keep the "next two things" in mind. I remember practicing nonprecision approaches and always being asked "what now, and what next?" over and over again. He'd pull the chart out off my yoke clip and expect a response like "7 miles to go to the VOR, out of 3100 descending to 2200, level then configure at 2 DME, then next altitude 1400 next course 274, right crosswind". Always know the next two things that are going to happen. This is your PRIMARY situational awareness tool; extraneous avionics are SECONDARY to it, ALWAYS.

As we get into larger, better equipped aircraft with glass, FMS, GPS, moving maps, VNAV, etc and fly longer routes with less-frequent landings, we naturally start to lean on the automation to tell us these "next two things". Initial and recurrent training in the airline world assumes tacitly that professional pilots do not need to be taught these basic airmanship skills; you are EXPECTED to bring that to the plate with you from jumpstreet, day 1. This is as it should be. However, over the years the natural encroachment of automation dependency (or shall I say unconscious automation laziness..?) that most of us at least occasionally experience will erode those sharp thinking processes. THAT is the thing that in my humble opinion is NOT adequately addressed in most training. Maintenance of those truly fundamental skills of airmanship which can all too easily be overlooked by the fact that the purple line very rarely fails during a simulator check.

A flight director, autopilot, etc is a CONVENIENCE item, fundamentally. It increases safety when it 1. reduces fatigue and 2. is FULLY under the pilot's control, allowing an increased sense of situational awareness by attending to the basic task of flying while allowing the pilot to monitor a more relaxed "big picture". If it fails to do either one of those things, it becomes a liability and should be instinctually and instantly disregarded. By always maintaining that same thought pattern of the "next two things", monitoring the raw data underneath the automation, this instinctive "step down" to basics is a complete nonissue. We must simply ALWAYS, proactively keep our mind engaged with the airplane, whether flying with hands on the yoke or with the autoflight system.

It's been a long time since I've been anywhere near a Dash, but as a former TRI and captain on 3 out of 4 models of the Crash-8 for a few thousand hours on type I can tell you that these basics hold as true for that aircraft as a 172, as well as for the jet types I've had the pleasure of enjoying subsequently. The hypnotic effect of automation complacency is equally destructive to basic airmanship and situational awareness in all of the above, as well.

"But for the grace of God, there go I". This kind of incident could happen to ANY of us in a moment of unaware fixation. Anyone who disagrees with that statement is either wrong, or truly much smarter than myself and 90% of the people I have flown with in any capacity in my entire career. Fly safe and remember the "next two things".

[PAXboy]

SLF here.
fade to greyThe Captain had 3000hrs total, 1500 on type and was 44 years old. I don't consider that alot of experience to be honest, and the age against hours indicates a 'career changer'.
That is a real snap judgement on someone that you do not know. PERHAPS the numbers tell of a person who realised that the 'glamorous' long haul was costing family life? Perhaps someone decided to work short haul local to be more human?

[aterpster]

PAXboy:

That is a real snap judgement on someone that you do not know. PERHAPS the numbers tell of a person who realised that the 'glamorous' long haul was costing family life? Perhaps someone decided to work short haul local to be more human?

They no longer log long-haul hours?

[BOAC]

Hmm! 46 years 'experience' as a passenger but no knowledge of the industry?

[Hotel Tango]

Was that 3000 hours as Captain or total flying hours?

[BOAC]

We really need to drop this topic of 'experience'. 3000hrs is ample for the job and sufficient for a 737/AB command. Add in 1500 on type and I would suggest this Cpt was just fine on experience.

Read hikoushi's post - it could happen to a 30,000 hr pilot. No, it shouldn't, but it can.

[tubby linton]

The classic example was Eastern 401. A crew fixated upon a warning light whilst the autopilot flew the aircraft into the ground. The captain had just under 30,000hr .

[vrb03kt]

fade to grey
Tyreplug - Are you insane ? the Captain had 3000hrs total, 1500 on type and was 44 years old. I don't consider that alot of experience to be honest, and the age against hours indicates a 'career changer'.

Did you see the First Choice 767 damage photos contained in the AAIB bulletin of the previous month? 14,000 hr skippers can make mistakes too. I take issue with the crass "flybe monthly" comment; 2 out of 4 events reported in the last few months were due to technical faults rather than crew error/low experience.

[PAPI-74]

I am sure the MPL will improve things:eek:

[DavidWoodward]

I am sure the MPL will improve things:eek:

And the can of worms is opened.

[eastern wiseguy]

whilst the autopilot flew the aircraft into the ground.


Or more precisely it didn't.

[Emoclew]

hikoushi,
As a turboprop to heavy jet pilot myself, I would like to to compliment you on a post which is among the best I have ever read on Pprune.

[eastern wiseguy]

Serenity ..my post referred to EA 401

[tubby linton]

Eastern wiseguy is correct in that the Autopilot on EA 401 had disconnected . Due to a difference in the breakout forces between the Captain's Yoke and the F/O's yoke, on the F/O's side the light which indicated autopilot engagement and altitude hold remained lit even though the autopilot had been inadvertently disconnected by a nudge from the Captain.

[bubbers44]

Nowhere in my instrument training because we had no autopilot did it say to monitor the descent. It said do it to the next altitude. I know the new guys use automation because of their expeience level so tend to rely on it more than us old guys. Hope they figure it out before the next event. The next one might be like Buffalo if they don't get their act together. Just learn to hand fly like us old pilots and you will be fine. Relying on automation works sometimes.

[farsouth]

Hikoushi - another :ok: from me

[antonov09]

Absolute nail on the head with that post.:ok:

[excrab]

"I am sure the MPL will improve things"

In this case not having an MPL didn't help, so maybe it will....

The most sensible post so far on this thread was the one about ther but for the grace of God etc...

What you can say is that the individual crew, all of flybe's other Q400 crews along with their training department and any other company's Q400 crews who read the aaib report will have learned from it. Anyone who hasn't flown a Q400 is just guessing.

[The Ancient Geek]

The most sensible post so far on this thread was the one about ther but for the grace of God etc...



Indeed, the man who never make a mistake never made anything, we all screw up once in a while which is why we have two people up front to keep an eye on eachother. The PNF should always be alert and ready to cry foul. Complacency is the great enemy.

If in doubt hit the power and go round, even if you only have an unexplained feeling that something is not right, you probably dont have time to figure out what is wrong, just get out of there.

I have never understood why so many pilots feel that a go-around is somehow shamefull or a sign of weakness.

[Windsprite]

Now that is the kind of post that helps aviators on this site to enhance their knowledge using the experience of others. Learn from the mistakes of others who are kind enough to share it with you. Do not insist on making your own!!:D

[Capt Pit Bull]

OK...

1. Change of data source causes mode deactivation.
2. loss of mode causes unintended flight path

It seems the crew were distracted by the abnormal, so the flight path was not monitored, and therefore deviation not spotted until GPWS. Obviously I think the CRM fell apart in regards to this.

The report also refers to them not noticing the mode deactivation or monitoring the FMAs. Now, is it being suggested that the mode deactivation should have been spotted as a matter of routine scan? if so, I disagree. Yes, in general routine scanning should pick up mode changes, I don't dispute that, but in this case the mode change shouldn't have come as a surprise.

I'm not familiar with the Q400, either it's avionics or checklists, so the following terminology may be wrong, but the gist of what Im saying should be valid. Comparable aircraft I have flown have had similar behaviours. I.e. Changing data sources might result in a mode change. Thus, changing a data source is an event of equal gravity to making a flight mode selection.

So it should have a thought process to match:
What modes have I got?
What should happen when I make these selections?
(make the selections)
Are the modes as I expected? (if not, why?)
Is the other pilots mental model of the current modes the same as mine? If not, which (if either!) of us is right?

In this case the very act of reaching for the air data selector should have triggered the knowledge that it would disarm the alt capture, and a wise PNF would verbalise that knowledge IMHO. 'this will kill your vertical modes' or similar.

So to me this doesn't just speak of a crm breakdown, but also weak initial tech training and/or poor recurrent training. Surely an ADC failure should be part of the recurrent sim training?

Please note I'm pointing the finger less at the crew than the training, but also at the industry in general.

[fade to grey]

PAX,
You clearly state you are a passenger so the only thing you are qualified to comment on is seat comfort.

I'm not attacking Flybe or their pilots (I know a few), but for operational or technical reasons they do pop up alot on AAIB. The one that almost hit the mast at aberdeen, the one that scrapped the tail.... etc etc. Fact is the Q400 is in there often.

Nor would I suggest it couldn't happen to me, it can happen to anyone at anytime.Wasn't it the captain of the titanic who stated the day before it sunk he had never had any incidents in 40 years.

Keep telling myself the mantra aviate-navigate-communicate all the time, and that basic premise stands good.Do not be distracted.

[Richard Taylor]

"I'm not attacking Flybe or their pilots (I know a few), but for operational or technical reasons they do pop up alot on AAIB. The one that almost hit the mast at aberdeen, the one that scrapped the tail.... etc etc. Fact is the Q400 is in there often."

If you are referring to the incident that I think you are referring to, that was i. Brymon, ii. a DHC8-300 & iii. 1998.

Not aware of any other instance of a plane approaching Aberdeen coming close to that mast, be it Flybe or anyone else.

[flydive1]

Wasn't it the captain of the titanic who stated the day before it sunk he had never had any incidents in 40 years.

Not strictly true

[2EggOmelette]

Fade to Grey.

Aviate, Navigate, communicate.
Dead right.

But please mate, that comment to Pax was wrong. That type of comment does none of us any good. So what if he's a spotter. He has an interest, and going by past comments of his he does have a clue. If not, at least he asks. The least any instructor would ask :=

[2EggOmelette]

Well said Jazz :ok:

[fade to grey]

Jazz - i don't see that your point relates to me, that's up to BALPA if they want opinions from passengers,whoever.

Adam - yeah, fair enough I was a bit harsh. But PAXboy accuses me of a 'snap judgement' , I'm not judging anyone, but I maintain thats hours/age is generally a reliable indicator of background.

Everyone's a bit touchy round here.

[2EggOmelette]

yeah, fair call mate. But just remember, everyone is allowed their opinion. Snap judgement aside, it is no less than ours in retrospect. Our opinion is based from experience. Some know more, others less. most if not all are relevant, but the jems are from those from the outside. I always listen to the pax, it is those who we serve no?

[bubbers44]

For those that missed it take a look at post 18. That is probably the hardest thing for the 300 hr guys to do, drop down a notch or two in automation even if it means hand flying to make the job simpler. Too much programing and monitoring programing at low altitude can really screw up your situational awareness with a last minute runway change.

[Squawking PAX]

As an SLF I have read PPRuNe for years but never commented - not my place to get in the way perhaps. However, this time.

OK, this forum does have its share of un-informed or un-thought through comments often from people who are (hopefully) not in the industry and at best may only be qualified to evaluate seat comfort.

However not all PAX are telephone sanitisers, some are well qualified to have opinions on or even insights into the issues discussed. Some work with technology and with the use of technology by people at similar levels to you. Some may have friends and family in the industry. Some will be well informed across the training and resource management issues you face. Some may actually have useful input.

My own interests involve training people to use (and understand) the increasingly complex "labour saving technologies" that we find in science and industry today. This is of real significance to the airline industry today with workload and knowledge/understanding issues sometimes causing it all to hit the fan when the old swiss cheese starts to wobble.

I do wonder what you all think of the automation of flying today where as systems become more simple on the outside they may become far more complex on the inside making it harder to understand what the plane is doing or complaining about now. And we certainly have had some very tragic outcomes as a result.

Is it getting harder for under-experienced or under-trained pilots to cope when push comes to shove?

Unfortunately flying is an industry which is seldom measured by its daily successes of which there are millions but by its few failures.

Anyway, for those of you who are doing the "good work", thank you and keep it up.:ok:

[Sunnyjohn]

- you just made one of the threads in Jet Blast.

If you think passengers know naff all, that's fine, but you're walking on thin ice if you then start leveraging those same ill-informed views to push your own agenda.

[davedek]

(Taken from the report on page 1):

"It adds that the crew did not follow standard procedures after the terrain warning."

What is the story here?? Seems to me like this could be a FAR bigger issue... anyone could make the initial mistake - but did they not respond properly to the gpws?

[fade to grey]

Squawking PAX,
I'll give you my pence worth. Reliance on automatics has been around for years, this is the way modern airliners are flown.

I think,maybe, too much fuss is made about it. To be honest there are alot of occasions where you don't want to hand fly anyway - departing LHR ? far too much happening, above 10000 - company doesn't allow it . Descending into XXX after 8 hr flight - too knackered now. Ok , departing xxx - er, no high terrain, and dodgy ATC.....To be honest I don't need a large proportion of my capacity taken up with raw data/hand flying, I have other things to do, even moreso from LHS. We must face the facts that we are not really 'pilots' in the conventional sense anymore.Wanna hand fly ,go hire an extra at the weekend.

Now that's not to say I don't want to stay current in hand flying, but that's mainly for my own reassurance - I've found when people don't do it for a while they become fearful of cocking up. Not really for the 'what ifs' because to be honest, the boeing I fly has 3 autopilots and not once have I been in the boat of having none serviceable in 9 years on type.That's not to say it would never happen but into the realms of low probability I think.

Slightly off track, but IIRC the MEL says you can dispatch with no A/Ps, but with my (last) company ban on hand flying above 10k it ain't gonna happen is it ?

[Clandestino]

Give the fellows that put together the assembly of parts collectively known as Q400 Collier trophy, for their lovechild has successfully turned "You fly like an autopilot" from a compliment to an insult.

I'm not talking about that particular (soon to be two year old) incident, just the "normal" everyday operation.

[bubbers44]

If you are as comfortable hand flying as programming an autopilot, sure let the autopilot do it. If you are uncomfortable disconnecting the autopilot and autothrottle then it is time to do some hand flying so you are. Do it where you can get up to speed without getting behind the aircraft however. Not in a terminal area.

[Burpbot]

As a reader of this forum for years, it never fails to amuse me the crap spoken! I liken it to reading a paper, if you have ever been involved in a story you will know how untrue a newspaper article reflects it! Prune is similar it's become a joke! Shame as used to be a Good portal to share, but from now on I don't think I will bother anymore as its become a joke! For the record airline captain nearly 20 years online!, I met danny once and thought good on you! Where did the ideals go? Shame!!!!

[fade to grey]

Burpbot - don't believe it . Trolling ?

738 - You can't just 'do it' - I'll say it again company SOPs don't allow it. Are you familiar with the idea of SOPs ?And the rest is not bla bla bla, the rest is what will get you nicked on the QAR.

I am somewhat concerned about your slapdash approach, mate.

I hear of another airline where there are no hand flying limits, so some young chap decided to fly all the way to XXX by hand. Bloody great idea (not), like I want to spend 70 % of my time monitoring him

[bubbers44]

B738 driver: I agree with you all the way. Our major airline had no sop's about handflying. The only airlines that would need those SOP's would be for pilots that couldn't hand fly. Needing an autopilot to fly your aircraft is scary. It should be a workload reliever, not a substitute for a competent pilot.

90 % of my approaches were hand flown because the last 6 years I flew into TGU in Honduras and you had to hand fly. Letting automation fly your airplane because it is safer in VMC conditions means you are not up to the task and should sharpen your hand flying skills. SOP's for automation only airlines probably hire low time pilots out of Embry Riddle that know how to program a computer but can't hand fly well.

Thank God the older airlines still have pilots that can fly without computers. Most haven't hired since 911. I saw the last group get furloughed two weeks after 911 and they aren't back yet. Sad.

[Island-Flyer]

I imagine the Q400 has a far superior autopilot but the DHC-8-100/200 autopilot has so many restrictions for its use we were required to hand fly 80% of our approaches.

[fade to grey]

No, you are absolutely right, you are not my mate. Consider mate withdrawn UFN.

I can't be arsed to battle with either the spotters or the self obsessed ego monsters prevalent on here

[haughtney1]

It seems that there is always a "good reason" not to hand fly. Although I agree that there are places and times to practice raw data flying, I realize that for some pilots it takes some effort to disconnect (click click A/P, click click A/T, FD's off) and there you go.

The location is not right (i.e London TMA), the weather is not good, the pilots are tired, the experience split between pilots is too big, company SOP's, etc...

The fact is: just do it. And make it mandatory for yourself once per day (if short haul),once per week (if long haul), up & down from ground to FL100.

Late into this thread, but after reading this load of tripe, I'm wondering which "big" airline you work for? (although something sounding similar to Mikey Air is probably where you reside)

It may surprise you sir, that the very things you suggest as being required and necessary..or to use your Nike inspired phrase "just do it" would put the collective arses of everyone where I work in a rather large sling thanks to the PCMIA card. Not only is manual flight frowned apon, it is actively discouraged and mandated against i.e. there are no practice approaches..FD off AT disconnected with 400 or so paying punters in the back.
Manual flight where it is appropriate and required, but the maximum use of automation at all times.
If this doesn't sit well with you then I would suggest you have failed to understand that there are plenty of operators where we might get 3-4 sectors a month, and the vast majority of landings are after 10 or more hours in the cruise, I for one won't be disconnecting until 1000' AGL or reciept of landing clearance anytime soon, my manual handling comes along once every 3 months in the sim.
Honestly...ego monsters indeed!

[bubbers44]

I think I see what is the future. No handflown approaches because the pilots aren't as good as the autopilots. Kind of sad, isn't it? Didn't use to be that way when we had real pilots. I am glad I am done. Most young pilots probably agree.

[Dream Land]

I don't necessarily agree with that statement, there are some very good sticks out there, but company SOP's, QAR monitoring, along with much more traffic and different ATC procedures don't always make it a great environment for hand flying.

[bubbers44]

What has hand flying made so difficult in the last 9 years? It wasn't then.

[bubbers44]

I guess I am just in a lost bunch of pilots that retired at 60 who flew til they listen to how the new guys do it. If the autopilot doesn't work, don't blame me.

[Capn Bloggs]

Oh come on, Haughtney1. Next you'll be saying "AF447 was just one of those things that happens, get over it".

Canned handflying in the sim once in a while is so far removed from the skills you may need, like that A330 crew needed, that it is basically a WOFTAM.

[haughtney1]

Oh come on, Haughtney1. Next you'll be saying "AF447 was just one of those things that happens, get over it".

Canned handflying in the sim once in a while is so far removed from the skills you may need, like that A330 crew needed, that it is basically a WOFTAM.

Nope Bloggsy I'd never in a million years say that, I'm pretty sure that if the AF447 had reverted to basic pitch and power, theyd be alive today. A management bean-counter on the other hand would most likely say "its just the cost of doing business"
As for canned hand flying, well, thats how my outfit want it done:ugh:
Of course the worm is S L O W L Y turning, the sim flying is a direct result of AF447 and other less serious incidents, but the flight Ops management where I work have deemed that it be done this way.

[COM Cleaner]

hey Captain Bloggs,

Doesn't your mob have the same automation policy as haughtney1 - avoid manual flight at all costs? :eek:

[gatbusdriver]

Why are you giving haughtney1 a hard time? He is right in what he says. If I was a virgin 340 pilot getting upto 2 landings a month I would not think that practising my hand flying on the line was a good idea, especially in busy TMA's at the end of a long duty day. If I worked for the likes of Emirates I would also think it was a bad idea due to FDM and SOP's. Improve your hand flying with an extra or a Cessna in these situations.

The AF accident did not happen because of a lack of hand flying on every other sector. It happened because the wrong pilot was in the wrong seat at the wrong time. There was a failure to recognise the stall and carry out recovery on behalf of the handling pilot and PM was unaware of the inputs of PF due to side stick.

[bubbers44]

That means one pilot could not hand fly and the senior copilot couldn't either. If he could he would have taken over if he had the confidence to do so but he didn't. That is why everybody died.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hand flying?

Using raw data for situational awareness?

I was really bored today and decided to read this thread.....now I am no longer bored I am afraid.

Knowing there might be pilots out there flying for some airlines that consider hand flying to be black magic that is to dangerous to try except in the Sim occasionally and is against their SOP's is reason for me to feel fear....

[bubbers44]

No matter what your airline tells you, if you never handfly, you won't disconnect the autopilot. If it disconnects itself you are hand flying but have to deal with hand flying. Your choice.

[Capn Bloggs]

If I was a virgin 340 pilot getting upto 2 landings a month I would not think that practising my hand flying on the line was a good idea
Strange. I talked to a Virgin A340 pilot last year and he said there was no discouragement from handflying or for that matter getting rid of the FD and autothrust.

Doesn't your mob have the same automation policy as haughtney1 - avoid manual flight at all costs?
It does; my take on Haughtney's post was that he supports his compnay's policy.

The AF accident did not happen because of a lack of hand flying on every other sector. It happened because the wrong pilot was in the wrong seat at the wrong time. There was a failure to recognise the stall and carry out recovery on behalf of the handling pilot and PM was unaware of the inputs of PF due to side stick.
Absolute rubbish. Had the PF been practiced at hand flying at high altitude he in all probability would not have pulled the nose up so much and stalled the thing in the first place! "Hmm, this is strange, I'm hand flying, the power hasn't changed and we're climbing for the moon, better lower the nose a bit so she doesn't stall..."

The aeroplane was stalled, pure and simple, and the three pilots were so unskilled/practiced at scanning all the instruments, so unpracticed at taking in all the information they had in front of them, were so stunned by what was going on, that they sat there virtually doing nothing because they couldn't work it out. I agree that some whacko Airbus design features didn't help.

Every second you get practicing your IF scan ASI/VS/Altimeter/Attitude, actually looking at and feeling the response from your (even minor) control inputs when hand flying, will help you identify a completely odd-ball, totally weird situation and recover from it.

[Machinbird]

The AF accident did not happen because of a lack of hand flying on every other sector. It happened because the wrong pilot was in the wrong seat at the wrong time. There was a failure to recognise the stall and carry out recovery on behalf of the handling pilot and PM was unaware of the inputs of PF due to side stick.
gatbusdriver, do you care to offer an opinion as to why PF was unable to hack the program? What was missing from his training or background? The retrospective view of "He didn't hack the program." really doesn't tell us what the problem was.

[The Ancient Geek]

Please can we get this thread back on topic.

The incident concerned has nothing to do with hand flying.
They lost situational awareness while distracted by a problem, they should have rejected the approach and taken their time to sort it out in the pattern.

[haughtney1]

A few points of interest..rebuttal if you will.

my take on Haughtney's post was that he supports his compnay's policy.

Then your take Capt is incorrect, I neither support nor am vehemently opposed to the policy, I do however understand the rational and the mindset behind such a policy.
Do I think it causes an erosion in flying skill? yes most definitely, do I think flt Ops managers believe this as well? for the most part yes, but statisically speaking, the various regulators, risk managers, manufacturers and guys who run company SMS and flight safety programmes consisently produce data that drive these policies in the first place.
As a matter of fact I hand-flew an approach into an Australian airport a little while back after getting back to my seat and feeling well rested, it was day VMC and the gusty crosswind was near my company limit, I felt it was safer and more appropriate than using automation and disconnecting at 1000 AGL with a handlful of aeroplane.

738 Drvr

You completely miss the point here. But that's ok, whatever works for you. In my company raw data / hand flying flying is not encouraged either, and nowhere in the SOP's will you find any recommandation to practise FD off/ AT disconnected approaches.

It does not mean that pilots are not responsible to maintain their flying skills. Hand flying is not to be practised in the sim (poor saoul, I wish I never heard that), but is on the line. It does not matter if you have 400 or 200 or 2 passengers in the back, they would still expect the pilots able to handle a non normal when the situation arises. It does not matter if you have 1, 2 or 3 autopilots, automation is dangerous when used as a replacement of your basic stick and rudder skills. The AF447 is just a one of the examples, but there are many more out there.

Actually, I get the point entirely, the difference is, if I disconnect an A/T, or turn off a FD without a bloody good reason, I will find myself in the chief pilots office for coffee and dates in fairly short order, and if I trott out the line " I was just doing it to maintain my profficiency" I will be shown the door in fairly short order.
Now can I fly a rate 1 turn and not gain or lose 50 feet? yep, I certainly can, can I manually fly a CAT 1 ILS in raw data to minimums? yes I can do that too, I use bullet proof techniques that equate to flying the jet by numbers, in fact thats what I base my whole operation on, pitch and power..simples.

Absolute rubbish. Had the PF been practiced at hand flying at high altitude he in all probability would not have pulled the nose up so much and stalled the thing in the first place!

Bloggsy, one last thing, if your company lets you hand-fly up at high alt, more power to you, if I tried that, it would be do not pass go, do not collect 200 whatevers and here is your resignation letter to sign.

[Yellow Son]

'Hours/age is an indicator' says Fade To Gray. Yes, but it's not a totally precise tool. When I was in my early 40s I had 3000 hours, so perhaps you might consider me inexperienced. But nearly all of that had been military, half of it intensive, short, teaching sorties. Even on 4-jets we had the luxury of adding a couple of extra approaches at the end of most trips. It's surely not too simplistic to say that time spent on takeoffs and landings contributes more to useful experience than flying S&L at FL 300. That's not meant to undervalue the undoubted competence of the 15,000 hour airline pilot, but don't let's pretend that a man with 'only' 3,000 hours is necessarily a newbie.

[fade to grey]

No, fair point, yellow son . I know with the current lack of flying in the mil some of the FJ boys are getting 100 hrs a year ?

I think I can summarise, that we would all like to hand fly but some SOPs don't allow much of it .

I don't think AF447 had much to do with hand flying - more a failure to interpret and act on what the instruments were saying. I am sure they could have manipulated the AP earlier to achieve a favourable outcome.

I know in a previous life a capt who got a telling off as the FO felt he was being forced to fly a visual when he didn't want to to...I never pressurised anyone, if they fancied a go fair enough, if not fair enough.

I certainly don't by into the machismo (seen elsewhere on here) that basically consists of " you 're not hand flying, because you can't", that amounts to little more than bullying really.

[Yellow Son]

We grumbled on the squadron that Flight Safety was being compromised when we had a temporay restriction to 15 hours a month. If it's down to 100 hours a year, then I'm with Charlie Brown - Good Grief! Especially given that time on Ops has limited training value. But that's probably a topic for a whole other thread (I expect it has been already). I'm just thankful I'm not having to put up with that myself these days.

As an aside, I had an amusing moment while converting to the G1000 - forced on me by my Flying Club. During my check ride I was inflicted with the predictable 'graceful degradation'; during the debrief, the checker commented that I seemed to be more at home the fewer systems that were available. I had to admit that the final 'everything failed' scenario was the closst to the avionics fits I had been used to during my 3000 hours in the RAF! Not sure what lessons to draw from that - certainly nothing relevant to this thread - but it tickled me anyhow.

[The Ancient Geek]

I had to admit that the final 'everything failed' scenario was the closst to the avionics fits I had been used to during my 3000 hours in the RAF! Not sure what lessons to draw from that


Heh.

Some of the automation whingers around here should spend a few years in Africa hacking around the game reserves in a DHC6-200 with a basic panel and an autopilot that can just about maintain straight & level on a good day.

[DOVES]

Dear Sirs
Like Ancient Greek wrote in post n° 81 I’m afraid that this thread is rapidly drifting from its opening theme.
I do not think it's so relevant that the flight crew in question possessed or not good hand flying skills.
As in the following cases:
Scandinavian Airlines Flight 933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Airlines_Flight_933)
Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401)
China Airlines Flight 006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006)
(And who knows how many more!?)
there was, from the captain of the flight, an abdication of its fundamental mission, which is the safe conduct of flight.
We all know that the most important phase of a failure is the moment of its perception.
The crew is caught by the queen of battles: THE SURPRISE.
Ulysses wanted his crew members to put wax ear plugs in ordere not to be enthralled by the Sirens song.
I have always taught during my training that the first thing that a commander should do in case of failure, is ... NOTHING!.
He has to make sure that someone will aviate the plane: "I have control" (or if necessary as in this case "You have control", using possibly all the automatics).
And, if it is not urgent to reunite with the shadow;
Join a holding;
Identify the problem;
Assess the situation;
Intervene;
And at last: go to land.

[ECAM_Actions]

If people here think it is acceptable to never be allowed to hand-fly, and worse, think it is SAFE, then I fear for the future of air safety.

I hope those whose airlines think it is acceptable to hand-fly a sim once every 3 months change their minds, and soon.

Basic airmanship? Non-existent from reading this thread! AF447 won't be the last, I'm sure.

[Snigs]

DOVES you seem to be positioning yourself in the "it'll never happen to me" camp. Well I sincerely hope it won't happen to you....!

From what I read between the lines, of course there was a failure to follow SOP's with regards to the published response to the GPWS warning, but if it was a gin clear day and the crews response was safe and they continued the approach with situational awareness completely intact, then it might be said that airmanship prevailed. I'm sure that if the crew were in IMC and approaching an unfamiliar airfield then their response would have been entirely different!

[DOVES]

Snigs
Do you think that I am adequately humble having spent 47 years and more than 23000 hours of flight, accepting, asking, lessons, tips, suggestions, experiences from anyone in order not to repeat those mistakes made by others. And so far I have succeeded (and I've not even made new ones, because I've never flown tamagotchi which always reveals new traps). Thank you for the greeting: "I sincerely hope it will not happen to you ....!". Also because inspite the age I’m still in the air teaching the art of flying.
You wrote
...From what I read between the lines, of course there was a failure to follow SOP's with regards to the published response to the GPWS warning...
From AAIB
It descended to about 700ft (210m) [ILLEGAL] above terrain, while still 8nm (15km) from the runway [THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ALMOST 2500 ft ‘above terrain’], before the ground-proximity warning system [WHICH SAVED THE DAY; and was not on board to save Scandinavian Airlines on 1969, Eastern Airlines on 1972, etc.] ordered the crew to pull up.
You wrote
…the crews response was safe and they continued the approach with situational awareness completely intact, then it might be said that airmanship prevailed….
AAIB
There had been no action to correct the flightpath before the warning, suggesting the pilots were "not aware of the extent of the deviation" and were not monitoring the Q400's track or its flight-mode annunciator, says the AAIB.

It adds that the crew did not follow standard procedures after the terrain warning.

The AAIB points out it has investigated two previous incidents involving Flybe Q400s, in which the aircraft descended below their cleared level during approach owing to inappropriate mode selection and inadequate annunciator monitoring.

Errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum.

[Snigs]

DOVES

There is not much I can say about your comments, I could call them trite and self congratulatory, but I won't. I could ask you how many of your 23000 hours were spent in the crew rest area on long haul flights, but I won't (partly because I'm not interested, and partly because... oh I can't be bothered...)

You will notice that my post was full if "ifs" and "maybe's"

One fact for you though, the two previous incidents involving Flybe Q400s, in which the aircraft descended below their cleared level during approach owing to inappropriate mode selection and inadequate annunciator monitoring. were not as a result of an avionics failure and the subsequent distraction that was caused. No excuse I know, but why are you appointing yourself as Judge and Jury on this particular case as you don't know the full facts!

[ZeeDoktor]

Hikoushi,

The description of your instructor just made me smile, sounds like you described the instructor who taught me my IFR skills (which turned out to be more than that, general flying survival skills!). Man he was grumpy old bastard, xenophobic and conservative to a degree it would make any tea partyer blush... but he sure got the flying right! His version was (and mine since then has been): "What's next? And then?"

[JimNich]

This is a good thread with some good pointers which I have taken on board, and Doves and Ancient Greek are particularly entertaining.

The thing that sprung in my mind is that I ALWAYS think about reversion to manual during a departure (Ahead to 3.2 DME, right tracking 345 to ZUMAT to intercept the 041 radial into Pole Hill, climbing 5000') and satisfy myself that should the FMS play up in any way (perish the thought) I am prepared to do it.

However, am I as mentally prepared on an established ILS, even having pre-briefed the 'go around well above minima' scenario? I hope so (but I certainly will be now) but how many of us, once the localiser and glidepath have captured tend to relax just that little bit? Would I have handled the situation under discussion any better? Of course, we all like to think we would but I am too much of a self criticiser to think that it could never happen to me.

Thankyou for posting this thread, it has made me think, and hopefully a better oprator as a result.

And just to let you know what the new generation think about hand flying; recently into Manchester, after recieving clearance for a visual approach onto 23R just after ROSUN, I disconnected the autopilot and put the director bars to standby. The FO said nothing at the time but on the ground made it clear he was not a happy man. Took a lot of calming down and re-assurance from our part B to convince him that no rules or SOPs had been breached.

That seems to be the current mindset though.

3000hrs, probably with the majority doing four or more sectors a day with most of them under an hour. Inexperienced!!??