FD distraction danger during Go Around

[Centaurus]

Over the years, the situation has occurred where many operators enforce SOP training policies that require the flight director to be engaged during all stages of flight. In turn this can lead to not only automation dependence but automation addiction. FD were designed to be an aid and not the be all and end all of instrument flying.

A recent issue of Boeing Aero flight safety magazine discussed go around procedures and quoted in part, accident reports where the pilot(s) seriously mis-handled a normal IMC go-around with the result the aircraft crashed. A common theme was a night or IMC go-around. It was an interesting article where some discussion took place about the central role of the PFD with its ADI.

Before the advent of EFIS, the well loved (?) and long established flight instrument scan that covered all the main flight instruments gave the pilot `the big picture` The method and direction of scanning the flight instruments depended largely on pilot preference though there were pedants insisting there was only one way to scan and that was their way.

Nowadays the PFD has all the flight instruments crowded into a small space where scan rate is narrowed and not expanded. In central position and partially obscuring the "little aeroplane" is the flight director. When in use, the FD is primarily designed to concentrate the pilot's attention to juggling two needles into a tiny square barely 2mm in size. Fine if auto coupled to an automatic pilot; but requiring skill if manually flying.

The Boeing article on go-arounds discussed poor or disrupted pilot instrument scannings where pilots reacted very late to extreme negative attitude displays on both ADI's. These possibly led to somatogravic illusions that may be present during high acceleration or deceleration where a pilot has no clear visual reference.

Poor instrument scan is often characterised by marked pilot hasty over-controlling on the flight controls. Flight Director indications can become quite distracting as the needles can overshoot in response to jerky and inappropriate control responses.

There are pilots so brain-washed into blindly following the movements of FD indications (after all, who hasn't experienced at some time in their career the exhortations of an impatient simulator instructor shouting "Follow the bloody flight director") that they would never consider turning off a flight director even if its indications were confusing.

Boeing, in their various FCTM used to have the statement "If the FD is not to be followed, then switch it off." While that statement may arise the ire of some instructors who prefer their students to trouble-shoot the reason for a perceived FD problem rather than switch it off and sort it out at an appropriate time, there will be times when it is important to follow that Boeing advice. That includes measures to avoid the compulsion to chase FD indications during low altitude IMC go-around where clear unequivocal attitude information is vital. The first measure may be to switch the distraction (FD) off and return to basic instrument scan.

There is no shortage of evidence that severe over-controlling, coupled with poor instrument scan during an IMC go-around has been the cause of fatal accidents. Whether or not flight directors were involved is rarely mentioned in investigation reports. During simulator training, "chasing" the flight director is not uncommon during early training.

Chasing FD indications during the course of a low altitude high thrust go-around situation can lead to over-controlling. If that is happening, and before extreme attitudes are allowed to occur, the immediate action to return the aircraft to a normal go-around attitude, may well be to turn off the FD and use normal instrument flying procedures.

The FD is designed as an aid to instrument flying - but depending on circumstances, it can lead to a serious and unwanted distraction.

[Bobermo]

Interesting article!

The funny thing is, you get fd guidance automatically if you hit the TOGA button, even when the fd switch is in the off position(737)..

[flyingchanges]

I recommend we rename it the flight suggester. It is merely another instrument to be scanned.

[Lantirn]

In the bus also the FD's engage automatically. It is supposed to reduce workload, and it does.

But independence is another aspect.

One small trick that I do when I fly manually even with FD's, is to fly the pitch that I want, without over correcting for FD's. If FD's happen to match my pitch, that's fine. If not, I will not chase them unless, there is a big difference.

You can choose to have the FD's chasing your inputs by expecting the next required pitch.

Chuck Norris never follows his FD's. FD's follow chuck Norris.

[Mr Good Cat]

That's fantastic advice and technique, but unfortunately the way we breed pilots in the modern industry is to not practice the principles of flight, but to comply-comply-comply in the hope that the robust SOPs and reliable automated flight decks don't go wrong. Unfortunately, they do and we have lost that 'natural' feel of how an aircraft flies (expected pitch, power etc) to fall back on.

Shame your last line couldn't be incorporated into the first chapter of the FCTM, but it would be lost on most young newbies ;-)

[Lantirn]

It has nothing to do with newbies or oldies, bad pilots or good pilots (aviators or whatever you like)

It has to do with the mentality of the person. This is only one piece of the puzzle. No one is perfect and the aviation system is structured and evolved like that. There are gaps in performance, skills and knowledge but that's normal, it is accounted, and aviation system is based on probability. (I hate it, but that's how it is)

But one has to expect from himself to improve. Improvement means following Procedures and knowing why, researching about new procedures actively and not passively, learning from errors and discussing them, studying your stuff and the list is too long. If you love it, you know it. It's a tremendous amount of information in the manuals, books, Internet, manufacturers magazines etc etc etc

Any new pilot will learn in the beginning to use maximum automation, because that's how it works. Automation came to offload the workload, to increase the capacity.
However the difference is how YOU spend your time when autopilot is engaged, versus how HE spends his time. Treating this gentleman as a human is the key, everybody involved in aviation knows it, basic stuff. Instrument scan means scan, not staring. The point is that this new pilot over time, should switch to basic models of flying. If not, the training department is there to show.

High reliability and low probability of automation errors have made us overreliant and overcomplacent. But you are there and you know it. Do something to revert it.

Anyway there are a lot of topics here discussing this issues.

[RAT 5]

Lantern & GC: Total agreement with your earlier post, and that's how I teach. Sadly the 2 year F/O's who came out of the puppy mill and are now SFI's just regurgitate what they were taught. The downward spiral of ignorance is spinning.
One great demo of this is on takeoff. Everyone tells you they will rotate to 15, but they always chase the FD. If they have excess power, slow rotation or late rotation the speed will be higher than optimum & FD's will be above 15. Up they go to the FD 18 degrees, speed reduces, FD's pitch down , then up, then down and eventually settles at OMG 15 degrees. Repeat the exercise and stop at 15 as briefed and lo & behold the FD decides you are smarter than it thought you were and comes to meet you. Job done.
The FD (B737) needs to sense an error and will then give a direction to correct it. If you ignore it the deflection will increase. It's an attention getter that gives you a clue in which direction to adjust what you are doing. It is not an absolute attitude commander. It suggests slightly more or less attitude to achieve the desired task.
There's not enough teaching to look through the FD. What is taught, by rote, is "follow the FD if it is correct; if it is not then reprogram or turn it off". Question: how do you know it is correct unless you scan the basic parameters of the performance instruments that feed into the FD computer, and that involves basic attitude? Guys are not taught how to decide if it's correct. First they should do a session of no-FD G/H. Then they will understand how the a/c behaves and flys. Sadly that is not done these days. Tosh! Students have tunnel vision.

Lantern: Ref 2nd post. IMHO that's correct, but a little simplistic. The industry is being fed by cadets from MPA courses. They are influenced by how they are taught & guided. It will be the habits that are instilled in them from day 1 of JOC/MCC/TR courses that will shape their habits and attitudes. It will be the guidance and discipline of the instructors and not all of them will be of 'the right stuff'.

[vilas]

It's not that simple. One small trick that I do when I fly manually even with FD's, is to fly the pitch that I want, without over correcting for FD's. If FD's happen to match my pitch, that's fine. If not, I will not chase them unless, there is a big difference. The pitch which you want is only a rough guide. You can move to that initially but if you are not going to centre the FD later it is simply inaccurate flying. FD guidance is very precise and accurate. You will never get to land in CAT II without that. Your PM will be a lost person not knowing whether the deviations are intentional or you lack the skill. If FDs are behaving then to maintain the profile speed/Alt or ROD you will have to centre the FDs and if you are not going to follow them for whatever reason you should switch them off. First they should do a session of no-FD G/H RAT5 you are not in touch with reality. They very much do. There are eight sessions before the AB type rating in which they mostly fly without FDs including departures and arrivals and approaches. There is no ATHR in that entire phase. Manufacturers have more qualified people who laid down procedures and every line pilot is not in a position to overrule them.

[Lantirn]

I agree. Thats true for the CRM, but I usually brief it. Also I brief that in departures without noise abatament, I dont reduce the thrust to CLB, unless the climb pitch is achieved, especially in high GW's.

True, precision flying is FD's only. But what I meant is to select a reasonable pitch and fly it. If the difference is big, slowly adjust. The point is not to chase the FD's. When gusty and windy its a mess to follow them manually. Better push the AP to do the job.

It is the same concept of flying the approach with autothrust off. I set the thrust at 53 percent with conf full, I leave it and see. I have flown many approaches without even adjusting the thrust.

[Judd]

The point is not to chase the FD's. When gusty and windy its a mess to follow them manually. Better push the AP to do the job.



Better still, switch off the FD altogether and simply fly the aeroplane rather rushing to engage the autopilot to save your skin.
In his great book "Handling the Big Jets" first published in 1967, D.B Davies, the ARB Test Pilot gave this sage advice.


"Do not become lazy in your professional lives. The autopilot is a great comfort, so are the flight director and approach coupler. But do not get into the position where you need this to complete the flight."


Today, there are common sense aspects to what he says and that means regulatory requirements need to be met where automatics are indeed required to complete a flight. Having said that, there are too many lazy pilots out there who are so out of practice at switching seamlessly from automatics to manual flying no flight director operation, that they are, by any definition, incompetent at their primary job as a captain. :ugh:

[vilas]

Judd

The autopilot is a great comfort, so are the flight director and approach coupler. But do not get into the position where you need this to complete the flight." Undeniably so, but with due respect there is no comparison between automation of 1967 and 2016. The initial B747 had ATHR(if at all) only for approach to maintain speed (the one I flew) and Auto land was far away. Today with digital AP in a demanding situation it is safer to use optimum automation. The lament for lack of skill is loud and yet there are many incidents which are caused by inability to handle automation. Both are necessary and need to be developed.

[RAT 5]

RAT5 you are not in touch with reality. They very much do. There are eight sessions before the AB type rating in which they mostly fly without FDs including departures and arrivals and approaches. There is no ATHR in that entire phase.

I am forced to teach a TR syllabus for a Boeing designed by the host airline. In only 6 FFS sessions there is a max of 30 mins manual flying and the only non-FD flying is 3 raw data ILS. That is the reality which I argue against. However, after banging my head against the wall for years I've decided the continuous head-ache is not worth it.

[vapilot2004]

The true flight director is the pilot flying. That's what we were taught back when autopilots tripped off regularly, often for no apparent reason, and computing power behind the instruments seemed just a bit faster than a guy handy with an E6B and a stopwatch.

If you did have the command bars switched on, you knew the system wasn't intended as a replacement for piloting skills, only as a smart, but occasionally misinformed/uninformed aid. You knew this because you knew what the numbers were, what they were supposed to be, and what direction they were moving in, because this is how we used to fly airplanes.

To get the best out of the FD, we should already know where we are and where we are headed with respect to the raw data (numbers) and use the bars as rough guide. If something doesn't add up, the answers are almost always right in front of you, but the 'calculus' can take some time.

This is where EFIS equipped aircraft can help combat the loss of SA and build the big picture if we pay attention to the trend indicators. These mitigate the loss of intrinsic awareness moving dials used to provide and guide the anticipation of pitch and power changes needed to keep on path and speed, a job description of the FD and the PF.

[vilas]

RAT5
Yes I am aware of some airlines which have modified jet orientation approved from authorities. This short cut course is a sham. Pilots coming through this course struggle during type rating.

[Lantirn]

Anyway. Chasing the Nintendo bars is the easiest way to blindly fly. The FD's have been designed to follow them, for sure. But I have noticed that Nintendo flying worsens my perception about pitch settings. It's not easy to look behind FDs. At least for me. Others may have the ibility to do it. I don't easily. You can do a no-FD departure but not every day. But anyhow I feel that some here think that the deviation is huge, no it's not, it's very small, at least the way I do it.

We are lucky because we are allowed and encouraged to fly no-FD's takeoffs if not RNAV and raw data descents-approaches and I do periodically, as I like too to perform Autolands (versus some of my captains that they look like I am asking to go to the moon) to remain current in the scan, call outs and procedures but I don't think it's enough.

[RAT 5]

We are lucky because we are allowed and encouraged to fly no-FD's takeoffs

Lucky indeed. There are some operators where non-FD flying is forbidden, even on a severe clear day and a visual approach. OMG, a visual approach, (which is also discouraged) with an FD means too much thinking, talking, following instead of just manipulating the a/c intuitively. How to make an easy job difficult. What happened to KISS. I guess those guys think that KISS means keep the automatics engaged as long as possible.
I still think it's an interesting debate, which has been touched on previously, is to have A/P ON & FD OFF. The FD will always be centred with automatics in CMD. Thus it distracts from scanning the basics to ensure the automatics are in fact doing what you intend. Remove the A/T and the a/c will stall with the FD's centred. The same if you select V/S on approach with MAA set. The a/c will crash with the FD's centred.
I'm sure the THY B737 at AMS had centred FD's in APP mode when it stalled.
It came a surprise to many students; so "follow the flight director" came with caveats.

[Lantirn]

True.

We do visual approaches and we remove all the automation whenever we like during the visual.

Typical call out is "AP OFF, FDs OFF, BIRD ON, set runway track..."

You can leave the automation in a visual but usually not below 1500ft, it's simply not practical. You have at some point to look outside.

[FlyingStone]

RAT5 you are not in touch with reality. They very much do. There are eight sessions before the AB type rating in which they mostly fly without FDs including departures and arrivals and approaches. There is no ATHR in that entire phase. Manufacturers have more qualified people who laid down procedures and every line pilot is not in a position to overrule them.

Definitely not the case with factory training done in Toulouse.

[vilas]

FlyingStone
Definitely not the case with factory training done in Toulouse.Are you talking about the ELT course syllabus or quality of training?

[vilas]

is to have A/P ON & FD OFF. The FD will always be centred with automatics in CMD. It is not permitted and it is not a good idea to do so because when the AP misbehaves it may not be easy to detect. Pilots definitely should be allowed to practice manual flying when the circumstances are not hostile. But you don't develop deviations from automation SOPs especially with FBW. Take the case of SFO B777. The crew kept one side FD on without even knowing that it will not allow the ATHR to transition to the required mode. Had they not done so with all things being equal they wouldn't have crashed. MPL training in my opinion is a better way for low time pilots. As long as some talent is there and in the hands of knowledgeable instructor they should be able to give good account of themselves. There is ample time to mould them according to their strengths and weaknesses. In normal type rating trainee needs to be at a certain skill level to start with otherwise it is a struggle.

[Denti]

It reads as if vilas was talking about a jet orientation course, not the type rating itself. The type rating, even in toulouse, is only 8 to 10 sessions and there is a lot of stuff to cover so manual flight does happen, but not all often.

The AP on FD off thing seems to be mainly a 737 thing where that is absolutely possible, although still not standard operation technique. As usual, a pilot should know how to operate his aircraft and if something like that is possible or not.

[RAT 5]

It is not permitted and it is not a good idea to do so because when the AP misbehaves it may not be easy to detect.

In 80's in UK B767 the CAA insisted that when all 3 autopilots were engaged for autoland the FD's disappeared.

Why is it not permitted? If each is manually selectable then it is possible, technically.

[vilas]

RAT 5
The very point I am trying to make is that line pilot has a brief on how to go about doing his business that doesn't include any testing with passengers on board. Air Asia Indonesia trying to find if it is possible to reset CBs in flight, Pinnacle flight 3701(though no pax) trying to find out how high can you reach are the examples that makes for tragic reading. There is a long list of what is possible. To have real practice of OEI in flight, direct law in flight is possible but you simply don't do it. Besides what's the purpose? you want to develop manual flying skills do it the recommended way, just switch off automatics and do it. The medicine should not be deadlier than the disease.

[stilton]

Ridiculous, the SFO 777 crash was caused by a Pilot that didn't know how to fly.


If you're so dependent on automation you cannot fly and literally crash without
being able to depend on all its functions your are in fact, not a Pilot just a passenger
along for the ride.

[vilas]

I said all things being equal. He may have found other ways to crash that's another thing.

[vilas]

Denti
The straight type rating course is meant for pilots who have acquired basic flying skills in another jet aircraft. They are taught the procedures and peculiarities of airbus. But you do find an experienced 737 copilot has no idea how to fly an ILS without FD'S. Then the course has no space to learn that afresh. He is worse off than 200 hrs. guy who gets extra training JOC.

[Centaurus]

Back in 1966, several RAAF pilots were sent to Avro's at Woodford Cheshire to undergo a type rating course on the VIP version HS 748 and ferry two aircraft back to Australia.

I believe Collins had a deal with Hawker Siddeley to installed FD 108's into the 748. In my view, you didn't need a FD in a 748 because it was a slow turbo-prop. Others disagreed though and loved flicking the switches. So we were sent to Weybridge for a one day course on the FD108. I think we spent about two hours in a classroom lectured by smooth talking white coated sales people and were showered in pretty brochures including how you could do 45 degree automatic intercepts of an ILS.

We were then given a wonderful free lunch by the Collins Reps including free grog at a local pub. After this long lunch we asked about the remainder of the FD 108 course and were told we had successfully completed the course and I have a vague idea we were presented with a Certificate of Completion.

I think I flew about 700 hours on the HS 748 and never used the FD. I will never forget that lunch and the subsequent hang over, though

[Denti]

Denti
The straight type rating course is meant for pilots who have acquired basic flying skills in another jet aircraft. They are taught the procedures and peculiarities of airbus. But you do find an experienced 737 copilot has no idea how to fly an ILS without FD'S. Then the course has no space to learn that afresh. He is worse off than 200 hrs. guy who gets extra training JOC.

True enough, however, cadets usually have around 150 to 200 hours in the simulator already by the point they start their typerating. If they do a quality MPL training that is, like most bigger european operators with inhouse training do. Oh, and they of course might have flown light jets during their initial 80 hours of flight training as well. They make for nice advanced trainers.

Anyway, the point about the FDs being off while the AP is on depends very much on type. In the airbus it is a huge thing not to do. In other types it doesn't matter at all, like the 737 for example. Quite a few of my colleagues used that mode as their preferred way to operate and there was no downside to that. Now that they are on the bus they did adjust and just do normal FD off take offs like anybody else.

[RAT 5]

I wonder if airlines' top class trainers, the top class XAA Flt Ops Inspectors & technical pilots, the manufacturers top pilots, human factors and human performance experts or a conference relevant to the matter of pilot training have ever debated the merits of monitoring an autopilot flight with FD's OFF. It is a human factors issue more than a technical one. IMHP the FD is a guidance system to achieve a task. Therefore it is more relevant to manual flight than automatic flight. There is an argument that it hinders monitoring if all you do is glance and find it always centred. It can lull one's senses into thinking all is hunky-dory.