Blind Reliance on Automation in Australian airlines
Thread Starter
There is a tendency nowadays to keep the automatics in, even when the response is not as anticipated. You are criticised in the sim or on checks if you disconnect when the behaviour of the automatics is unexpected. I come from a generation of pilots where automatics were unreliable- we don't have a lot of patience when they go wrong and hit the disconnect button and aviate manually. A lot of younger pilots sit there with the aeroplane behaving odd and mumble 'what's it doing now?', and just watch a situation develop. I have to jog them sometimes with a discrete hint: 'why don't you just disconnect the damn thing and FLY IT? Who cares a flying f what it's doing- it's not doing what YOU WANT, mate!' As automatics become more complex, the 'paralysis' of watching, in a sort of cobra-like trance, automatics misbehave without actually doing anything about it is getting more of a problem
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK has recognised the deterioration in manual skills and now includes one nil jeopardy automatics off sim session a year. (not enough in my opinion still its a start), ie no auto thrust, autopilot or flight directors. Good fun.
So depending on spare time of 15 minutes or so, I would haul the PNF away for a cup of coffee and close the sim door and tell the pilot to enjoy himself on a few touch and go circuits solo. Not a soul in the cockpit. In the simulator hall you could always hear the roar of reverse thrust on the final landing when time was up. Out of the simulator would step a smiling happy confident pilot. Worked wonders I tell you.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My theory is this; we only wind up in the sim every six months. I think this is where we need to look at to see where the degradation in the competency of pilots stems from. I think that with the ever-increasing use of automation (as opposed to reliance) we have to get into the sim more often. Bring back the three-monthly sim routine! No, I didn't like it either, but I believe I felt more confident in that regime than I do under the six-monthly one.
Would remind them a heap, and reward many with fun and enthusiasm they have not had in years.
Many of the RPT pilots here do this anyway I know, and I wonder what they think it does for keeping their brains alert and muscle memory acute!
Chimbu Warrior and Chuckles would no doubt agree, what about the others?
Kelly,
You'll go far with an attitude like that.
Fathom,
If you're easily coping with track shortening, then you're wasting fuel. 
Getting back to the original post, did two pilots sit by and watch as a serviceable aircraft flew itself into the ground or was there a problem with the manual controls or the automation? Did the Captain allow his plane to crash because his offsider couldn't manage to get the autopilot to engage because that is not blind reliance on automation, that is criminal incompetence.
Fathom,
track shortening can get ugly
Rubbish! That's what it's all about!
Rubbish! That's what it's all about!
Bloggs
From these two statements:
track shortening can get ugly and Rubbish! That's what it's all about!
you have skillfully deduced that easily coping with track shortening infers you are wasting fuel.
I must have skipped class that day.
From these two statements:
track shortening can get ugly and Rubbish! That's what it's all about!
you have skillfully deduced that easily coping with track shortening infers you are wasting fuel.
I must have skipped class that day.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NZ
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a good thread.
Regarding the last couple of posts.
Whether you are wasting fuel by being in a position to accept track shortening is irrelavent to this particular discussion. The original question was aimed at the use of automatics, not fuel.
I think we can all agree that refusing track shortening on a star does not neccesarily constitute an over reliance of automatics.
Donk
Regarding the last couple of posts.
Whether you are wasting fuel by being in a position to accept track shortening is irrelavent to this particular discussion. The original question was aimed at the use of automatics, not fuel.
I think we can all agree that refusing track shortening on a star does not neccesarily constitute an over reliance of automatics.
Donk
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Springfield, USA
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hongkongfooey apology accepted.
I agree that GA doesn’t teach us to fly a fully automated A320 but, it does teach us to fly it when the automatics start misbehaving by reverting to the scarebus’s pseudo manual flight system.
It’s no different to a light aeroplane then. Pull stick back, aeroplane pitches up yada yada. The problem in my view is that the new gen pilots who learn the basics in the sim won’t see these automated jets as just user-friendly aeroplanes, but as computers to manage. Computers you can trust. They won’t know any different.
I feel that the experience gained in GA is under-rated by some for whatever reasons. Just because some developed countries manage to manifest airline pilots without a GA industry doesn’t mean it’s not the best training ground for countries that do.
I agree that GA doesn’t teach us to fly a fully automated A320 but, it does teach us to fly it when the automatics start misbehaving by reverting to the scarebus’s pseudo manual flight system.
It’s no different to a light aeroplane then. Pull stick back, aeroplane pitches up yada yada. The problem in my view is that the new gen pilots who learn the basics in the sim won’t see these automated jets as just user-friendly aeroplanes, but as computers to manage. Computers you can trust. They won’t know any different.
I feel that the experience gained in GA is under-rated by some for whatever reasons. Just because some developed countries manage to manifest airline pilots without a GA industry doesn’t mean it’s not the best training ground for countries that do.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add to the debate, unusual attitude training is a must for when things go pear shaped
There is a big difference between seeing a screen at 90deg with the sim leaning to one side and hanging in the straps with your nav bag on the roof and all the dust on the floor falling into you eyes... not that I didn’t enjoy rolling the sim through 360deg 
It’s no different to a light aeroplane then. Pull stick back, aeroplane pitches up yada yada
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: boat
Age: 57
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the allocated training sim sessions required to obtain a type rating do not go far enough. For the new age culture of pay as you go, how many for example have tried to cut corners by completing an outdated type followed by ''differences training''?
A fresh type rating barely scratches the surface especially when it comes to learning the automatics.
Automatics work fine in most instances until one is put outside their routine.
How many times has one announced''autopilot x to command'' without referencing the FMA?And lets not talk about AWR manual mode and its use.
Today's new culture and its direction was attempted to be addressed by the Hudson hero but how many actually paid attention to his emphasis on the lack of training and future consequences of such critical failure?
Latent failure introduction? And exoneration by the shrinking of op's manuals, and the PIC has final whatever.
But the press have better things to report on,and our unions something to lobby about and make public or the authority to actually address this ''human anomaly'' in the inexpensive cost effective culture that has migrated from the O'leary school of management.
A fresh type rating barely scratches the surface especially when it comes to learning the automatics.
Automatics work fine in most instances until one is put outside their routine.
How many times has one announced''autopilot x to command'' without referencing the FMA?And lets not talk about AWR manual mode and its use.
Today's new culture and its direction was attempted to be addressed by the Hudson hero but how many actually paid attention to his emphasis on the lack of training and future consequences of such critical failure?
Latent failure introduction? And exoneration by the shrinking of op's manuals, and the PIC has final whatever.
But the press have better things to report on,and our unions something to lobby about and make public or the authority to actually address this ''human anomaly'' in the inexpensive cost effective culture that has migrated from the O'leary school of management.
Interesting article in the latest Flight International:
Thomson crews undergo eye tracking evaluation
I wonder if a GA jockey with a couple of thousand hours hand flying would be better than a 200hr jet-SIM MPL in this regard? 
I would say YES. We all need practice to stay good at it, But would an MPL ever have it in the first place?
Thomson crews undergo eye tracking evaluation
Thomson Airways has carried out eye-tracking tests of it's crews in the wake of a 2007 landing incidentinvolving a 737-300 operated by it's predecessor, ThompsonFly.
In the Sept 2007 incident at Bournemouth airport in the UK, the 737-300 crew nearly lost control during the approach when the speed was allowed to decay to a dangerously low level.
The tests have discovered that a few pilots' instrument scans are seriously deficient, even when their performance would have been judged, by an examiner on the flight deck, to have been good.
The implication is that some airline crews, possibly at all airlines, are surviving because nothing goes technically wrong on their watch. The worry, says Thomson, is that this aberrant pattern may not be correctable because, even with retraining, the pilots concerned tend to revert to their natural patterns later.
In the Sept 2007 incident at Bournemouth airport in the UK, the 737-300 crew nearly lost control during the approach when the speed was allowed to decay to a dangerously low level.
The tests have discovered that a few pilots' instrument scans are seriously deficient, even when their performance would have been judged, by an examiner on the flight deck, to have been good.
The implication is that some airline crews, possibly at all airlines, are surviving because nothing goes technically wrong on their watch. The worry, says Thomson, is that this aberrant pattern may not be correctable because, even with retraining, the pilots concerned tend to revert to their natural patterns later.
I would say YES. We all need practice to stay good at it, But would an MPL ever have it in the first place?
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 10th Oct 2009 at 09:41. Reason: Speling. Why doesn't Prune have a spel cheker?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're talking about boeing yes that is correct, if you're talking about an Airbus then that isn't necessarily true. You never control the aircraft until you start turning off the protection modes.
In a Boeing you turn off the autopilot and autothrottle it becomes just like every other aeroplane you've flown. In an Airbus you turn off the autopilot and you still only have a rate of change controller. You don't actually control the aeroplane directly. In a boeing I could crank it over to a 45 degree AoB but I couldn't do that in an Airbus, the computer would overrule me. To make a Airbus something resembling an aeroplane you would have to turn off the protection modes and go to something resembling manual reversion.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a boeing I could crank it over to a 45 degree AoB but I couldn't do that in an Airbus
If you fly the bus you might want to do some more reading, if you don't you are making statements based on ignorance. Anyway, in airline operations, why would you ever want to "crank it over" to 45 degrees let alone more? Control laws in the Airbus allow a full normal range of control deflection, you would only find them intruding on your skygodlike inputs when reaching what would be considered by any normal definition, to be an unusual attitude.
To make a Airbus something resembling an aeroplane you would have to turn off the protection modes and go to something resembling manual reversion.
If you're talking about boeing yes that is correct, if you're talking about an Airbus then that isn't necessarily true. You never control the aircraft until you start turning off the protection modes.
This is not a thread discussing the pros/cons of Boeing v Airbus, it is about the flying abillity, or lack thereof, of the people charged with the responsibility of flying them, whether Airbus or Boeing. Why do people feel the need to slag off Airbus or Boeing based on their own experience and lack of knowledge? I have seen pilots who would struggle to fly either with everything turned off (in this case I would prefer to be in the airbus). Conversely I fly with people who could fly a house brick if you could get it off the ground. Mainly because they are keen, interested and knowledgeable pilots who work hard to maintain their flying skills, both with the stick and the automatics.
Last edited by bloggs2; 13th Oct 2009 at 01:34.
