Type ratings. Teach manual flying first then introduce automation. No brainer..

[Centaurus]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/man-vs-machine-at-40-000-feet-11546776000

[BizJetJock]

That may be why many quality training organisations have been doing it for years?

[STBYRUD]

I know a rather large training provider with a three letter acronym that certainly doesn't 😏 I remember my 777 type rating with them, the instructor did not want us to turn off the autothrottles for a raw data approach "because we do not train double failures"...

[mustangsally]

As a general idea, I think that is great. Manual flying is a lost art. The reason manual flying is not emphasized comes at how much training time do we commit to this activity. Training hours equates to cost. When learning a new system the automation needs to be learned to the extreme. Repeated training of the automation till learned and understood. The other problem comes from culture. The 777 accident at SFO and other demonstrate the respect of seniority in certain cultures. CRM training is designed to recognize that, but also to speak up repeatedly with emphasis and even insults if necessary. Rather talk about it with the crew after the fact than with the accident board. Many years ago after completing ground and simulator for the 747, again it was all on the automation. Went to IOE. First leg was a demo by the training pilot, he had flew it all the way to 350 and continued for another five or ten minutes. I commented that was beautiful. His comment back was you can try it on the next leg. I did and boy it I learn a whole lot.

[A37575]

The other problem comes from culture. The 777 accident at SFO and other demonstrate the respect of seniority in certain cultures. CRM training is designed to recognize that, but also to speak up repeatedly with emphasis and even insults if necessary
Ah Yes! - Ethnic Culture. Often the bane of common sense flight safety and where CRM is often ignored. Speaking up with emphasis is one thing, but to recommend insults if necessary, is surely unwise and counter productive. .

[Check Airman]

Had a conversation with an acquaintance regarding his first jet type. I encouraged him to do a bit of flying without the automation. He said he didn't want to fool around like that in front of the trainer. It's not "fooling around", it's developing a skill. And if not with a trainer, then when?

Quite a different attitude to manual flying on this side of the Atlantic. While undergoing line training on each of 2 types, I was required to demonstrate at least one approach with no automation whatsoever. Obviously, I agree with the OP, that it's important in the sim, but it's even more important to do it on the line.

[pineteam]

Obviously, I agree with the OP, that it's important in the sim, but it's even more important to do it on the line.

Totally agreed. It's in fact highly recommended by Airbus test pilots to practise raw data during line operations.
Source: WIN Application: Introduction to Basic Flying skills.

[compressor stall]

I believe the new Airbus factory type ratings have a short session with no automatics first up. Before anything else. The intent is that students will understand that at the end of the day Airbus stay in the air for the same reasons as a 172 and can be flown similarly.

Of course this only works if students have enough skills to fly a C172....

[Check Airman]

Totally agreed. It's in fact highly recommended by Airbus test pilots to practise raw data during line operations.
Source: WIN Application: Introduction to Basic Flying skills.

Can you provide a link for that? I can't seem to find the document you're referring to.

[Sidestick_n_Rudder]

I did my A320 rating in Toulouse back in 2011 and there was surprisingly much of raw data flying and Alternate/Direct Law. I was very happy with the training and changed my attitude towards Airbus, which had been very skeptical.

Later I did A330 add on rating in an Airline and it was very automatics oriented. I almost couldn’t touch the controls until session no3...

Recently I did 787 conversion at Boeing an they were very reserved about trying out things. My impression was they had paranoia about being sued for training something wrong in case of a crash. All the time I heard “we don’t teach this a Boeing”, or “we teach procedures, not techniques”, you can’t try this, you can’t try that. No manual thrust, no high crosswinds etc. We did raw data approach once as it’s a part of EASA curriculum. Apparently it is not a part of FAA curriculum, so the Americans don’t even train that anymore.

[pineteam]

Can you provide a link for that? I can't seem to find the document you're referring to.

Hello Check Airman,

If you have an Ipad or IPhone, you can look for " WIN Airbus'' and download the application. It's free.

Otherwise: https://www.airbus-win.com/ (http://www.airbus-win.com/)

Go to " Training" and then 'Intro to Basic Flying Skills'.

It's a 41 minutes video. Very Cool. Actually, many interesting videos and documents on that website! Totally worth it!:ok:

[Airmann]

I believe the new Airbus factory type ratings have a short session with no automatics first up. Before anything else. The intent is that students will understand that at the end of the day Airbus stay in the air for the same reasons as a 172 and can be flown similarly.

Of course this only works if students have enough skills to fly a C172....

Airbus' new policy is to start the first full sim in direct law then turn on the flight control computers through alternate law and into normal. Was back into normal about 10 minutes into the Sim.

The biggest issue with training in this day and age is
1. Quality of instructors.
2. Time restrictions with resources.

Both are inadequate.

[Check Airman]

Hello Check Airman,

If you have an Ipad or IPhone, you can look for " WIN Airbus'' and download the application. It's free.

Otherwise: https://www.airbus-win.com/ (http://www.airbus-win.com/)

Go to " Training" and then 'Intro to Basic Flying Skills'.

It's a 41 minutes video. Very Cool. Actually, many interesting videos and documents on that website! Totally worth it!:ok:
Excellent website. Thanks!

[vilas]

The manufacturer,TRTO and the airline are the three agencies who impart type ratings. For the first timer in jet Airbus syllabus has Entry Level Training with eight sessions of simulator sessions. Out of which four sessions are without any automatics with minimum procedures. Actual training starts later. The problem is the minimum acceptable level varies with each organization. It's business as usual and if too many are turned away they loose customers who go somewhere else. So the best way is Airlines should conduct their own training to their satisfaction but even they have to make do from available talent and compromises are made. Even syllabi are altered to keep the cost down because in the commercial world the best Airline is the one which makes maximum profit and stays afloat. But if you see the incidents it's not necessary only lack of manual skill but in many even knowledge of automation is found wanting. In others operating indiscipline, lack of SA, inability to appreciate threat management are the causes.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
This year and 2020 (FAA and EASA) will finally see the requirement for expanded flight envelopes for all sims (for upset recovery) and a much greater emphasis on manual flying skills v. "managing automation", as the transition period expires.
Hopefully, most other authorities will follow the example.
The new FAA flying training syllabus, when published, will be interesting, CPL/ATR could well required an aerobatic component --- something that a few airlines with cadet schemes have always required.
Tootle pip!!

[AerocatS2A]

How about this:

Type ratings. Develop a flexible lesson plan that focuses on strengthening a student’s weaknesses and avoids wasting simulator time on aspects they are already competent at. No brainer.

Some pilots can hand fly any old aeroplane they are thrown into. Some pilots can very quickly come to understand automated systems. There is some overlap between the two groups (some pilots are quick to adapt and learn manual and automated flying on a new type).

So so let’s learn what the individual student can and can’t do and then tailor their learning to provide the most value to them.

[exfocx]

I first left my country to work overseas in 2002 and worked at an airline (FO) were it wasn't unusual to find CAs hesitant to fly manually with AT and FDs on let alone raw data and NO automatics whatsoever and I mean in 8 8s blue sky. It worries me this is now across the mainstream (the west) and talking of doing that evokes something close to fear.

The idea that trainees undergoing type training have minimal manual manipulative skills is telling, it's an strong indicator that they have little experience flying full stop. It's also close to 18 yrs now and I guess a lot of FOs are now CAs and are likely to be just as hesitant about manual flying and that isn't worrying, that's frightening!

[vilas]

Type ratings. Develop a flexible lesson plan that focuses on strengthening a student’s weaknesses and avoids wasting simulator time on aspects they are already competent at. No brainer. It's not that simple. Syllabi are approved by the regulator and all items need to be completed. The actual execution of the lesson plan is done around the strength and weakness of the trainee provided the skill defficiency is within a certain limit. What needs to be flexible is the total number of sessions.

[Roj approved]

Back in 2013, through Boeing Singapore, we did a whole 4 hour session of circuits and touch and goes in the initial full motion sim session.

It was a great way for us Airbus guys to re learn how to trim again😂😂

It may have been a little overkill, but it was fun. ✈️✈️