FAA encourages manual flying proficiency

[Piper_Driver]

A new FAA report has come out to attempt to address the deterioration of manual flying proficiency.

Article on FAA report (https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/new-faa-pilot-training-guidelines-seek-to-address-manual-flying-deficiency/151076.article)

[FUMR]

I believe that there's already a great deal more manual flying in the USA than in many other countries. It should be encouraged worldwide!

[Lookleft]

So the FAA want pilots to do more manual flying yet EASA is pushing to have single pilot cockpits where the automation is the dominant partner in the operation of the aircraft. Well regulators you can't have it both ways. Either the pilots are in control or the automation is. Manual flying is a perishable skill and unless it is constantly practiced it wont be available when needed. I try and fly by example by not putting the A/P in until past transition and disconnecting early on approach yet most F/O's will engage the A/P even before the flaps are retracted and disconnect at 500'. Yes its an Airbus and easy to fly but the scan and the coordination still need to be practiced. The occasional manual flying exercise in the simulator is not the solution either. Flying in turbulence in cloud doing climbing or descending turns cannot be replicated effectively in the sim. The sim is a very good training tool not a real aircraft being subject to the vagaries of turbulence and wind changes close to the ground.

[Big Pistons Forever]

A new FAA report has come out to attempt to address the deterioration of manual flying proficiency.

Article on FAA report (https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/new-faa-pilot-training-guidelines-seek-to-address-manual-flying-deficiency/151076.article)

Good !!!!!!!!!

[slast]

Here's the link...
AC 120-123 (faa.gov) (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-123.pdf)

[601]

What happened to the you beaut buzz word "competency"

[atr-drivr]

Recently retired from a 121 US carrier on the 320/321. I made it a point to turn off EVERYTHING at least once a day regardless of the wx. FD, AT, AP. When I was in the right seat, I flew with many guys who had NEVER turned off the AT!! I personally thought that was insane. During one recurrent event, the scenario was LGA/BOS with inop AT. As we were getting ready the Capt very quietly asked me to take this leg, i asked why and he said since he had never flown with them off he felt uncomfortable doing so….😳. When cleared for a visual approach anywhere, I would disconnect all, the FO would ask if i wanted the ´bird´?.. my answer was alway no. My own opinion was if I could not manually fly the airplane in visual conditions to the touchdown zone by either looking out the window or using the VASI/PAPI, I probably should not be in one of the two front seats….YMMV

[BizJetJock]

So the FAA want pilots to do more manual flying yet EASA is pushing to have single pilot cockpits where the automation is the dominant partner in the operation of the aircraft. Well regulators you can't have it both ways. Either the pilots are in control or the automation is. Manual flying is a perishable skill and unless it is constantly practiced it wont be available when needed. I try and fly by example by not putting the A/P in until past transition and disconnecting early on approach yet most F/O's will engage the A/P even before the flaps are retracted and disconnect at 500'. Yes its an Airbus and easy to fly but the scan and the coordination still need to be practiced. The occasional manual flying exercise in the simulator is not the solution either. Flying in turbulence in cloud doing climbing or descending turns cannot be replicated effectively in the sim. The sim is a very good training tool not a real aircraft being subject to the vagaries of turbulence and wind changes close to the ground.
The FAA circular is addressed at pilots now flying existing aircraft. The EASA study is looking at aircraft that might just be in production in 20 years time. So two totally different topics.
I also don't think EASA are "pushing" for single pilot aircraft. The manufacturers and airlines are and EASA have agreed to look at it, as they should. Personally I think they will conclude that it is not safely practical, The next step will be pilotless aircraft, but i don't think they will arrive before I am gone.

[draglift]

On the Boeing I fly we are not allowed to disconnect the autothrottle unless there are technical issues like unreliable airspeed. Previous Boeings I flew were operated with manual throttles for approach and landing. I think this is Boeing's recommendation and not company policy. It would be nice if once established on a descent profile during approach we could disconnect the autothrottle for practice.

[Lookleft]

The FAA circular is addressed at pilots now flying existing aircraft. The EASA study is looking at aircraft that might just be in production in 20 years time. So two totally different topics.

Not really. The topic is the role of the pilot. The FAA is not just addressing current pilot skills as the pilots of aircraft in 20 years time are now in the training pipeline. The EU EASA and ICAO are stating that the role of the pilot will be different and that they will be more of a systems manager and that different skills will be required.

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a41/Documents/WP/wp_101_en.pdf

So the two are linked. The regulators have to decide what the pilot is for and what skills need to be maintained. If they are just a systems manager then all the simulator training, all the competency requirements that are currently mandated will have to change and that change is needed well before these wunderluft take to the skies. If the regulators still require pilots to meet ME, IFR ,two crew, HF, CRM and experience to be PIC then the whole industry will need to be in place for a long time to come. Boeing forecast the demise of the 4 engine transport jet while Airbus ploughed ahead with the A380. I think the FAA might also have it right when looking to the future status of the pilot.

[slast]

There's also this ...
Aircraft Handling and Manual Flying Skills Report (iata.org) (https://www.iata.org/contentassets/d0e499e4b2824d4d867a8e07800b14bd/iata-report-aircraft-handling-manual-flying-skills.pdf)

[alf5071h]

The FAA's AC on Flight Path Management is a 'mess'.

It attempts to address issues which are poorly explained, and for which there may be no unique solution; particularly not training. Training has served us well, a high level of safety, but not a universal solution.

The origin of the 'safety' data is questionable (pre 1996); dated and subjective HF interpretations from accident investigation, categorised by error, blame and train; old views of safety with reducing relevance to the modern world.
Flight path specific data, if any, is not presented or discussed in context, nor related to the new generations of aircraft and operational situations, in a very safe industry.
The 1996 report focussed on technical interfaces, where revised design requirements still refer to human error, and the assumed ability of crews to alleviate design issues (25.1302) in older aircraft.
The updated review 2013 does not refer to modern aircraft and operations. There is little or no substantive data, lacking explanatory understanding or justification beyond blame the human, i.e. human error, more training.

There are no comparisons with recent safety trends - flatlining since 2020 - (which suggest that the excellent safety record may be as good as it gets), new technology, focussed learning, and compatible operations.

Reading the AC from a European, UK English, viewpoint, and considering that meaning stems from communication, the wording poses many problems.

The AC "… provides guidance and recommended practices to operators … in developing operational policies, procedures, and training to support effective flightpath management (FPM)."
Words are increasingly subjective, meaning is formed according to local context - it means whatever the reader wants it to mean.

'Effective' may only be judged after the fact, by lack of incidents, or with incidents, ineffectiveness is used as an alternative for error, blame; without reasoned explanation or justification.
No human related intervention can be 'Assured', only judged relative to viewpoint; who's view, who judges - the regulator against the non existent 'how to' achieve the ill-defined objectives in this AC.

The FAA devolves responsibility to the operator, to the pilots; 'To be fully aware, capable, proficient'; … if not … blame, train, constrain.
Regulators must 'stand up', take responsibility, at least for explanation and practical guidance relative to the problem issues (beyond explanation by outcome).

… and the crux with this approach to safety is in para 2.2.1
"Operational policy and procedures for FPM should be based on guiding principles that state the general philosophy or overarching concepts and expectations for FPM."

An expectation of the safety of flight path management - the pilots day job - based on principles, philosophy and concepts, and expectations, assumes too much.

The AC creates conflict, '… procedures for the execution of most maneuvers, contain highly scripted actions and callouts. Training for these maneuvers should ensure that pilots are not taught to focus on the procedural details at the expense of the “big picture,” which is that FPM is the highest priority aspect of every maneuver. Standardized procedures are important, but procedures should be taught in such a way that the overall context of FPM is clearly conveyed to the trainee.'
So follow the SOP, except where the context has to be interpreted otherwise. Double Bind, catch 22.
… and cross checked with monitoring, the least effective human ability.

The preceding Flight Operational views (Air Carrier Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee) make similar assumptions;
"17-8(a): Operators should provide flight crews with recommended strategies on the use of automated systems in normal, rare normal and non-normal operations. Training these strategies should be scenario-based and operationally relevant." But what is relevant, who's view.
There are others, and a glimmer of hope from ACT ARC Recommendation 19-4 Energy Management which considers the wider problem issue; unfortunately encapsulating the complexity of the issue by reverting to definitions - illustrating the difficulties in understand the issue, thence understanding is inferred by definition.

Where next?
The regulator could start with the ICAO guidance for HF in regulation; a revised view of safety, Safety-II, Resilience.
Relinquish expectations that humans will conform to Work as Imagined in regulation, advice, or guidance.
Seek real-world line-orientated knowledge of the problem, an understanding of Work as Done; beware of the limits in industry sponsored operator or national reports which often suffer bias as above.
Accept the uncertainty in modern operations; outmanoeuvre it opposed to control it.
It is difficult to change the human condition, easier to change working conditions, particularly if aligning recommend practice, regulations, etc, with the realities of operation, aircraft systems, operational scenarios, and human performance - the day job - work as done.

Present the evidence, discuss, relate; is there a problem, or just a perception lacking explanation; or is this a reactive initiative by controlling bureaucratic regulator, which risks adverse outcome due to lack of understanding?

[slast]

I agree Alf5071h. It's doubtless well-intentioned - the FAA issued Safety Alert SAFO 13002 10 years ago encouraging operators to "take an integrated approach by incorporating emphasis of manual flight operations into both line operations and training (initial/upgrade and recurrent)" . So it's only taken that long to produce 46 pages which talk about training programmes, but nothing really specific that a Chief Pilot could look at and implement quickly to change day-to-day line operations. (I'll PM you in a couple of days on this, Dan).

[Bergerie1]

It would also help if the authors of these documents could write in plain English. George Orwell has some excellent words of advice about the use of English. He wrote that “the great enemy of clear language is insincerity” and suggested 6 rules to help keep writing clear and concise

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

[BraceBrace]

I made it a point to turn off EVERYTHING at least once a day regardless of the wx. FD, AT, AP.

The statement "regardless of the wx" is as equally insane as keeping everything on all the time. There are days when it's not the right time to "make a point" and you should use all available tools to help you out. At the end of the day, we are there to keep the passengers safe, not to show we can do something.

[BraceBrace]

On the Boeing I fly we are not allowed to disconnect the autothrottle unless there are technical issues like unreliable airspeed. Previous Boeings I flew were operated with manual throttles for approach and landing. I think this is Boeing's recommendation and not company policy. It would be nice if once established on a descent profile during approach we could disconnect the autothrottle for practice.

Not allowed is not the same as recommended. On the B777 Boeing recommends AT use, but we disconnected frequently just to keep the habit. There are a lot of people out there who have lost faith in themselves, or maybe even skills yes flying raw data.

The interesting conclusion I had to draw was that if you do this every once in a while, you don't really lose a lot of skills. On the contrary, the autothrottle also shows you how stable a speed can be within certain movements of the levers. I actually found it more strange to revert to "autothrottle ON" for landings than "autothrottle OFF" for some bizar reasons.

[Airbus_a321]

The statement "regardless of the wx" is as equally insane as keeping everything on all the time. There are days when it's not the right time to "make a point" and you should use all available tools to help you out. At the end of the day, we are there to keep the passengers safe, not to show we can do something.

„…At the end of the day, we are there to keep the passengers safe, not to show we can do something…“

IMHO the best and the most professional reply within this thread. Congrats to @Brace

[Less Hair]

Isn't being current to hand fly part of keeping them safe? Some airlines enforce the total use of automation, up to autolands on sunny days, so nobody ever can get any hand flying routine.

[tdracer]

It would also help if the authors of these documents could write in plain English. George Orwell has some excellent words of advice about the use of English. He wrote that “the great enemy of clear language is insincerity” and suggested 6 rules to help keep writing clear and concise

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

When I was still working, anything that went out to the flight or maintenance crews had to be 'translated' to something called "Simple English". Supposedly an aid to people for whom English was a second language, but it was often anything but 'simple' to express certain things within the rules of "Simple English".
Something I was often complemented on was my ability to write complex things in a way that was readily understood by those unfamiliar with the subject. Doing that in "Simple English" was way more difficult - at least for me.

[Bergerie1]

tdracer, Thank you so much, it really is difficult. In a previous existance, I used to oversee the writing of flying manuals, SOPs and instructions to flight crews. My constant mantra was that we were not writing literature but plain simple English. Thus, it was necessary to avoid all gobbledygook, to describe systems and procedures in the simplest but most accurate ways, and always to define the terms that we were using. In my view, the real expert can describe the most complex issues in simple terms. However, those who do not really understand what they are talking about (especially middle management executives) tend to obscure their ignorance in complex language that no one really understands.

[172_driver]

The statement "regardless of the wx" is as equally insane as keeping everything on all the time.

Do we have to challenge each other on do's and dont's? Let each pilot, with the consent of the colleague, judge what he or she is comfortable with. That's how I sharpened my skills.

I dread to think of all pilots out there who can't do a manual approach in less than visual conditions. Failures of automation does not care about the weather.

[N1EPR]

Maintaining manual flying skills is a requirement to be a professional pilot. One must be able to fly the aircraft without autopilot and auto throttle. AND at the same time have be able to think about handling an emergency with your fellow pilot. Handling the stick and throttle should be second nature to a professional pilot. The only way to get that way is to fly to altitude and descend from altitude in a manual mode.

[tolip1]

So the FAA want pilots to do more manual flying yet EASA is pushing to have single pilot cockpits where the automation is the dominant partner in the operation of the aircraft. Well regulators you can't have it both ways. Either the pilots are in control or the automation is. Manual flying is a perishable skill and unless it is constantly practiced it wont be available when needed. I try and fly by example by not putting the A/P in until past transition and disconnecting early on approach yet most F/O's will engage the A/P even before the flaps are retracted and disconnect at 500'. Yes its an Airbus and easy to fly but the scan and the coordination still need to be practiced. The occasional manual flying exercise in the simulator is not the solution either. Flying in turbulence in cloud doing climbing or descending turns cannot be replicated effectively in the sim. The sim is a very good training tool not a real aircraft being subject to the vagaries of turbulence and wind changes close to the ground.
FOs would love to hand fly as much as possible, but we only want to do exactly what the captain wants. So AP it is. If you're a captain and appreciate manual flying, then please say at the start of the day.

[Chiefttp]

I just flew an approach with the Auto Pilot and Auto Throttles off an hour ago. I make it a point to always disconnect the AP at 1000 AGL on every approach except in marginal Wx, and at least once a week I fly with the A/T off. You have to keep your proficiency up. I’ll always brief the F/O what I’m doing and to back me up, and I normally will brief that I plan on acting like a “real pilot” on this approach by disconnecting the automation. Try flying a raw data ILS sometime, it can get ugly if you don’t practice them enough.
Most guys at my airline will hand fly the takeoff and climb until FL 180, and all disconnect the AT around 1000 AGL. I’ll usually keep a close eye on F/O’s who couple everything up as soon as possible..it’s a Red Flag to me. Many of the weaker pilots tend to do this.

[WhatShortage]

Chiefttp That sounds like a fun captain to fly with! I have had several giving me the look when not pressing the AP as soon as possible, several: Are you gonna fly up to the other airport manually? // Is it gonna be manual flying the whole way!? because of it.
My go to is: Check the sid and brief that i'll put the AP once the last turn is done or when there's a straight leg.

Same for the approach, tend to disconnect at around 2000 or with flaps 2, AT depends and manual breaking ( this last comes after auto brake failure for 1 week straight and continued manual braking for most of the flights afterwards )

Going to ME or Asia and doing all that might mean you'll have a meeting or a fine if something goes SLIGHTLY off limits.

[Check Airman]

The statement "regardless of the wx" is as equally insane as keeping everything on all the time. There are days when it's not the right time to "make a point" and you should use all available tools to help you out. At the end of the day, we are there to keep the passengers safe, not to show we can do something.

Disagree. His (her?) ATP has no restrictions on weather. Is it a good idea to use the AP when it’s 200-1/2? Sure? Is it insane not to? Absolutely not.

More than once, I’ve had to turn off all the automation and go almost to minimums raw data. Best to stay proficient.

[slast]

200-1/2 and A/p available but deliberately not used ..
Is it Insane? No
Irresponsible and unprofessional .... Yes

[meleagertoo]

Stunning!
Utterly stunning!
Aviation authority encourages pilots to be able to fly?

You couldn't make it up!

[Check Airman]

200-1/2 and A/p available but deliberately not used ..
Is it Insane? No
Irresponsible and unprofessional .... Yes

Unprofessional to keep skills sharp?

In any event, in the situations I referenced, the FD and AP performance were unsatisfactory and had to be disconnected.

[172_driver]

200-1/2 and A/p available but deliberately not used ..
Is it Insane? No
Irresponsible and unprofessional .... Yes

I know we're not going to agree. But what do you think our passengers would say if we admitted not being able to fly an approach without computers helping us? Let's be honest.... many can't. Not even in good conditions.

I am with Check Airman. I have done 200-1/2 raw data "for fun". There is no restrictions on my ATPL. Company does not prohibit it. It's the only way I can assure myself I am able to do it. Call it Quality Assurance. Simulator is not sufficient. Simulator is good for many things, but not maintaining piloting skills. Normal 1/2 scale deflections apply or you bail out.

[slast]

Check Airman: To me it is elementary that pilots should remain able to achieve as an absolute minimum the standard set when they first qualify throughout their career! There seems to be a significant risk that that is not currently happening, because of the over-emphasis on using automation to the maximum extent possible by some operators. I am all in favour of pilots getting manual practice and keeping their skills as polished as possible, and not just in a simulator.

This is really all about risk management in the industry. Maintaining manual skills is a long term safety objective because those skills will be essential on rare occasions. However there’s also the issue of minimising risk in the short term in the particular circumstances of each individual flight. E.g. CheckAirman, you’ve now added:
Unprofessional to keep skills sharp?

In any event, in the situations I referenced, the FD and AP performance were unsatisfactory and had to be disconnected.That is exactly the type of “particular circumstance” I’m referring to. The A/P and F/D must have been engaged to start with or you wouldn’t been able to find their performance unsatisfactory.

So can we get some clarity here about where to draw the line? The inference I’ve been drawing from some of these comments is that in the situation where you have a serviceable autopilot etc and the reported weather is right on the minimums, it’s perfectly acceptable to practice hand flying instead. And I don’t think that’s a very professional attitude.

[172_driver]

So can we get some clarity here about where to draw the line? The inference I’ve been drawing from some of these comments is that in the situation where you have a serviceable autopilot etc and the reported weather is right on the minimums, it’s perfectly acceptable to practice hand flying instead. And I don’t think that’s a very professional attitude.

Your arguments are good, but I'd like to comment. After sim training is done and you want to master your aircraft, start out small. Fly it manually on CAVOK days. As you get better, fly it when you expect cloud break at 2000 ft, then 1000 ft. Eventually you'll do it to minima. That should be something to strive for, not shy away from, IMHO. Have some confidence in yourself that you can do it. It's not about being a cowboy, it's about being able to master your aircraft for the day you'll need it. I am sure the passengers will appreciate. If am in a good mood and feel sharp I ask my colleague; "I need some cloud training". If they are apprehensive, I refrain. If you do it regularly it ain't too difficult either. Small corrections, both lateral and in pitch. Modern Boeings are often track up on the ND, which makes it easier. Once configured the pitch stays in one place. When I was instructing, I often covered up the needles and let the students fly heading and attitude down the ILS and that would keep them stabilized almost right down to minima (as long as the wind didn't change much).

Here is an incident where they were all over the place: https://avherald.com/h?article=4c65913a
Fortunately they found VMC and could land.

[Check Airman]

Check Airman: To me it is elementary that pilots should remain able to achieve as an absolute minimum the standard set when they first qualify throughout their career! There seems to be a significant risk that that is not currently happening, because of the over-emphasis on using automation to the maximum extent possible by some operators. I am all in favour of pilots getting manual practice and keeping their skills as polished as possible, and not just in a simulator.

This is really all about risk management in the industry. Maintaining manual skills is a long term safety objective because those skills will be essential on rare occasions. However there’s also the issue of minimising risk in the short term in the particular circumstances of each individual flight. E.g. CheckAirman, you’ve now added:
That is exactly the type of “particular circumstance” I’m referring to. The A/P and F/D must have been engaged to start with or you wouldn’t been able to find their performance unsatisfactory.

So can we get some clarity here about where to draw the line? The inference I’ve been drawing from some of these comments is that in the situation where you have a serviceable autopilot etc and the reported weather is right on the minimums, it’s perfectly acceptable to practice hand flying instead. And I don’t think that’s a very professional attitude.

A few points here-

-You get the confidence to fly right down to mins by consistent application of your skills. I’m not good enough to do it once every 6 months and stay proficient. Rust accumulates.

-If I see the weather is right at 200-1/2, I’m planning for the CAT 2/3 approach. (Back then, cat 2/3 wasn’t an option available to us)

-Personally, I think given commercial considerations, raw data down to 500ft ceilings gives extremely generous margins. I’d have no issues if the other guy wanted to hand fly an approach like that.

-Current company requires FD on for approach when below 1000-3 anyway, so the point is moot for me right now

[Check Airman]

200-1/2 and A/p available but deliberately not used ..
Is it Insane? No
Irresponsible and unprofessional .... Yes

I have to ask, if you went to a doctor’s office and couldn’t be seen because the blood pressure machine wasn’t working, how confident would you feel about the subsequent diagnosis?

Or what if the doctor said he can’t give a diagnosis because the EKG computer won’t tell him what’s wrong with your heartbeat? Are you going to go back?

[slast]

Well I can see some merit in your first message just above, but are you sure you want to stick with those analogies in the second one?!? :hmm:
I’ve shown up at the doctor’s. He says “I need to know your blood pressure but the machine isn’t working”. So what’s next? I can say “Hmm, not impressed by this practice’s maintenance, maybe I’ll go somewhere else”. Or “OK I’ll come back when it’s fixed”. Or “well I’ve only come in because I’ve got a blister on my heel, how important is my blood pressure in this case? (etc…)

But as a more accurate analogy to this case he would say “I need to know your blood pressure - I’m pretty good at estimating it and I like to keep in practice, so I won’t bother with the shiny accurate machine just over there!” Now how confident would YOU feel about the subsequent diagnosis?
And in the second example, isn’t that what often happens – he says “the EKG won’t tell me what’s wrong, I’ll need to do more tests to figure it out”. It doesn’t show he’s incompetent. Would you rather he said “the EKG won’t tell me what’s wrong, but who needs EKGs anyway – I’ve got enough experience to do without it” ?? Or even "I'm a bit rusty at this so I want to try doing without it, just to make sure I can!":)