Blind Reliance on Automation in Australian airlines
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hongkongfooey,
If you're referring to the Air France A320 crashing into the forest, then I'm afraid that your reference to Airbus test pilot is incorrect; it was crewed by two Air France Captains, one a training captain, the other a senior one of some sort.
Since the first three accidents; the one you referred to, the Air Inter and Indian Airlines ones, there hasn't been an Airbus FBW crash due to mode confusion.
Just off the top of my head, the other ones have been; driven off the runway in thunderstorm (at least twice), driven in TOGA into the sea (at least twice), loss of control due to reasons as yet unknown.
And to cut the pilots in the first three some slack, Airbus changed the modes as a result of two of the accidents. The accidents also occurred when the aircraft (and, more importantly, the quantum jump in technology) were quite new, and so the pilot fraternity had not had a chance to become fully conversant with it's idiosyncrasies.
The Airbus FBW range of aircraft is designed primarily to be flown with the A/P connected. But it provides the pilots with a more user-friendly manual flight system should they be inclined to do so. It effectively makes it less important for pilots to practise their manipulation skills - in the Airbus FBW types there is no manipulation expertise required; simply point and release.
Conventional aircraft, with all their quaint trimming requirements, by design have to have pilots willing to practise the art of flying them manually.
In the recent past there have been more than a few Boeing types stalled because no-one thought to push the power levers up! And this in an aircraft that has perpetually moving power levers...
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.
Safe flying to all.
If you're referring to the Air France A320 crashing into the forest, then I'm afraid that your reference to Airbus test pilot is incorrect; it was crewed by two Air France Captains, one a training captain, the other a senior one of some sort.
Since the first three accidents; the one you referred to, the Air Inter and Indian Airlines ones, there hasn't been an Airbus FBW crash due to mode confusion.
Just off the top of my head, the other ones have been; driven off the runway in thunderstorm (at least twice), driven in TOGA into the sea (at least twice), loss of control due to reasons as yet unknown.
And to cut the pilots in the first three some slack, Airbus changed the modes as a result of two of the accidents. The accidents also occurred when the aircraft (and, more importantly, the quantum jump in technology) were quite new, and so the pilot fraternity had not had a chance to become fully conversant with it's idiosyncrasies.
The Airbus FBW range of aircraft is designed primarily to be flown with the A/P connected. But it provides the pilots with a more user-friendly manual flight system should they be inclined to do so. It effectively makes it less important for pilots to practise their manipulation skills - in the Airbus FBW types there is no manipulation expertise required; simply point and release.
Conventional aircraft, with all their quaint trimming requirements, by design have to have pilots willing to practise the art of flying them manually.
In the recent past there have been more than a few Boeing types stalled because no-one thought to push the power levers up! And this in an aircraft that has perpetually moving power levers...
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.
Safe flying to all.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new generation of twenty year olds are getting used to reliance on increasingly reliable automation. As this generation move through, expect to see less manual flying.
I love my job, and the company I work for. However, the role of an SO/CFO or whatever...is a total crock of sh&t designed for one thing....to save the relevant company some dough.
Don't forget though, you must be 'P' at landings etc, even though you dont do them...ever...
Thread Starter
Bring back the three-monthly sim routine! No, I didn't like it either,
If pilots dislike flying in the simulator there must be a good reason. Is it because the check pilots or simulator instructors are too aggressive or demand the impossible to meet their own legendry (in their own mind) flight standards? It is a shame that some check pilots adopt that attitude and they should be removed from those duties and re-trained themselves. That never happens of course due to the hierarchy. One method to fix that problem is to ask the instructor to personally slip into the seat and demonstrate his "skill" to those who watch with interest. It rarely happens of course in case he made himself look foolish.
Back to the point. Check pilots in simulators need to learn a basic principle of being an instructor and that is training is the purpose of simulator flying with an occasional requirement for "testing." That way, pilots will actually look forward to their recurrent training rather than dread it. They will come out of the simulator more confident and in most cases, better pilots.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus, you couldn't have put it better!!
Leaving aside an anecdote which could raise litigation. one that won't happened in another forum where it was suggested that it was so dangerous to hand-fly the a/c above F200 that you should only do so with the SeatBelt sign ON!!??
Thanks for raising the subject in the Oz context.
G'day
Leaving aside an anecdote which could raise litigation. one that won't happened in another forum where it was suggested that it was so dangerous to hand-fly the a/c above F200 that you should only do so with the SeatBelt sign ON!!??
Thanks for raising the subject in the Oz context.
G'day
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bang on the money Centaurus. My last two checks have been polar opposites due to first being with the sort of check captain you are talking about and the last being with a natural born instructor. I wasn't looking forward to the sim second time around, however with a good 'checky' I learned a lot and performed well due to the better atmosphere in the sim. I might not be eager to go to my next sim now (I'm not that much of a sucker for punishment) however I won't be stressing over it and will go up knowing I'm going to learn and come out of it a better pilot.
In regards to the use of the autopilot in the cct. My personal opinion is a good mix of both hand flying some days and using the autopilot others is the way to go. The manipulation of the FMP and power levers while using the autoflight gives a greatly improved confidence in using the autopilot. If you are confidant with the autopilot in high pressure situations you should still be able to make rapid changes to the FMP and get what you want out of the autopilot so you dominate it not it dominating you. Saying that I hand fly roughly half my ccts and about 75% of my practice approaches so that I maintain my stick skills.
If you're in poor conditions I think it is best to use the autopilot due to the lower work load giving you opportunity for greater situational awareness. You must be good at both hand flying and using the autoflight so both are available to you in adverse conditions.
In regards to the use of the autopilot in the cct. My personal opinion is a good mix of both hand flying some days and using the autopilot others is the way to go. The manipulation of the FMP and power levers while using the autoflight gives a greatly improved confidence in using the autopilot. If you are confidant with the autopilot in high pressure situations you should still be able to make rapid changes to the FMP and get what you want out of the autopilot so you dominate it not it dominating you. Saying that I hand fly roughly half my ccts and about 75% of my practice approaches so that I maintain my stick skills.
If you're in poor conditions I think it is best to use the autopilot due to the lower work load giving you opportunity for greater situational awareness. You must be good at both hand flying and using the autoflight so both are available to you in adverse conditions.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall John Deakin wrote a column that touched on this several years ago, when he started flying G-IVs. His point was that it would be beneficial to let pilots loose in the sim to fly the thing from time to time, free of check capts walloping them with V1 cuts, multiple failures, etc. Give the converting pilot a sense of how the aircraft works, and letting them explore.
Given the cost of and demand for sim sessions I suspect this sort of thing would be a bit of a stretch, but food for thought, anyhoo.
Given the cost of and demand for sim sessions I suspect this sort of thing would be a bit of a stretch, but food for thought, anyhoo.
Every time i have seen the Autos do something un-expected I have either hit the red danger money button or the captain has. Simply hand flown till the problem resolved itself then turned it back on again. George tends to fly a fair bit smoother then I can and so for the sake of the pax down the back I let him.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was on Melbourne Departures frequency the other day when an A320 inbound to YMML was offered track shortening and a visual approach by ATC. He refused it and said everything was going well and would like the full STAR. Is that an over reliance for automation and the FMC?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: asia
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Semantics Rad alt, it crashed because of lack of understanding of the automatics/protections, in this case alpha floor, will get back to you on the rest
Capatain Marvel, agree
Capatain Marvel, agree
training wheels - don't assume that because track shortening and/or a visual approach is refused that it is because of reliance on the AP / FMC. Depending on where you are in the energy matrix track shortening can get ugly. Crew may also want the full approach for currency.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
training wheels - don't assume that because track shortening and/or a visual approach is refused that it is because of reliance on the AP / FMC. Depending on where you are in the energy matrix track shortening can get ugly. Crew may also want the full approach for currency.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will probably be considered to be thread drift by some, but I think the final report of the accident that featured in Post # 1 mentioned that part of the problem might have been the captain's initial training on Russian equipment, (Egyptian Air Force), with the (to a Western pilot, incredible) Russian-style attitude indicator.
For those not familiar with Russian AIs, the horizon stays fixed and the aircraft symbol moves. Under high workload and quite obviously more than a little confused, the captain may have reverted to what he was used to. With the two totally different presentations, someone used to the Russian AI would bank the wrong way when trying to make a correction, (as he seemed to do).
It doesn't change the truth in what Centaurus says - basic flying skills aren't being maintained, and the policies of some airlines actively prevent even well-intentioned and diligent pilots from maintaining their manipulative skills.
For those not familiar with Russian AIs, the horizon stays fixed and the aircraft symbol moves. Under high workload and quite obviously more than a little confused, the captain may have reverted to what he was used to. With the two totally different presentations, someone used to the Russian AI would bank the wrong way when trying to make a correction, (as he seemed to do).
It doesn't change the truth in what Centaurus says - basic flying skills aren't being maintained, and the policies of some airlines actively prevent even well-intentioned and diligent pilots from maintaining their manipulative skills.
Wiley, that exact same scenario occurred in Russia a year or so ago when a B737 crashed at Berm. Crew were relatively new to western-built aircraft, and reverted to their instincts.