Merged: To hand fly, or use the automatics?
4 - I don't know about boeings, but any failure mode in an airbus that knocks out both autopilots, also puts you in alternate or direct law, which is a very different flying "feel" to normal law, and certainly something you couldn't and wouldn't want to practice on the line if you valued your job
The aircraft might "feel" and behave differently in alternate law/direct law, however the instrument scan is exactly the scan.
A good instrument scan is very important when hand flying no matter what control law.
A good scan developed and practiced in normal law will help you fly better when in alternate law/direct law.
Last edited by John Citizen; 21st Feb 2010 at 23:10.
Exactly John. It is a basic flight discipline.
If you are current and can fly an Airbus solidly on raw data whilst managing your flight deck. You are in a good position to do the same in alternate and direct law. Flying raw data in normal law is more demanding than flying in alternate or direct law with the benefit of Flight Directors. Flying raw data in alternate and direct law is only modestly more difficult than normal law.
And as Capt Bloggs mentioned and has been pointed out earlier in the thread, GA in Airbus has had two hull losses due disorientation- with countless close calls affecting most Airbus operators. The reasons are many but if a crew can look through the FD's and correlate simple raw data into a scan, you are not likely to hit the water nose low in TOGA!
Someone mentioned unusual attitudes. Did some very good Airbus-Boeing upset recovery training in Ansett. I have not seen it since ( though heard of plenty of incidents ). It was brought into the program due concerns civilian pilots may not have had any such training. And also due concerns that military pilots of high performance aircraft may be too aggressive on the rudders.
If you are current and can fly an Airbus solidly on raw data whilst managing your flight deck. You are in a good position to do the same in alternate and direct law. Flying raw data in normal law is more demanding than flying in alternate or direct law with the benefit of Flight Directors. Flying raw data in alternate and direct law is only modestly more difficult than normal law.
And as Capt Bloggs mentioned and has been pointed out earlier in the thread, GA in Airbus has had two hull losses due disorientation- with countless close calls affecting most Airbus operators. The reasons are many but if a crew can look through the FD's and correlate simple raw data into a scan, you are not likely to hit the water nose low in TOGA!
Someone mentioned unusual attitudes. Did some very good Airbus-Boeing upset recovery training in Ansett. I have not seen it since ( though heard of plenty of incidents ). It was brought into the program due concerns civilian pilots may not have had any such training. And also due concerns that military pilots of high performance aircraft may be too aggressive on the rudders.
So an autopilot is there to increase safety (amongst other reasons) ?
But don't you think it is also compromising safety if basic flying skills are starting to deteriorate, if an aircraft is mostly flown on autopilot ?
If autopilots / aircraft systems never failed, then sure, you would never need basic flying skills. However, that is not the case yet.
Refer to these document from flightglobal.com
US regulators to probe industry on automation
AA09: Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
There is also a very long discussion going on elsewhere in pprune regarding the same topic
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ys-airbus.html
But don't you think it is also compromising safety if basic flying skills are starting to deteriorate, if an aircraft is mostly flown on autopilot ?
If autopilots / aircraft systems never failed, then sure, you would never need basic flying skills. However, that is not the case yet.
Refer to these document from flightglobal.com
US regulators to probe industry on automation
AA09: Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
US regulators to probe industry on automation
By John Croft
US FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt says he will bring together airlines and human factors experts in April or possibly sooner to discuss the consequences of advanced automation as it applies to pilots, controllers and mechanics.
The basic question that will be addressed at the meeting, says Babbitt, is: "Have we automated to the point where the human is out of the loop?" The FAA chief was speaking to ATI and Flightglobal in Houston on 12 January after a kick-off event for initial operations of the FAA's automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast services (ADS-B) in the Gulf of Mexico.
Babbitt, a former airline pilot and instructor who continues to fly light aircraft on occasion after becoming FAA Administrator in June 2009, says he initiated the effort in part after hearing from "several airlines" that they were changing operational procedures to call for "a little more hand flying".
Pilots typically engage an aircraft's autopilot shortly after takeoff, returning to hand-flying mode shortly before landing. FAA rules require that all aircraft flying above 29,000ft (8,845m) in reduced vertical separation minima (RVSM) airspace be operated on autopilot for safety reasons due to the limited vertical separation between aircraft, but carriers have more leeway at lower altitudes.
Autopilot use is largely determined by efficiency measures in those areas, a reality that would tend to signal increased automation and autopilot use as the FAA moves toward 4d navigation, where an aircraft must pass certain waypoints at a relatively precise time.
The role of automation and training has been in the safety spotlight after several recent high profile accidents in 2009, including the stall-related crash of a Colgan Airways Q400 in Buffalo in February, the crash of a FedEx MD-11F during an otherwise normal landing at Tokyo Narita in March and the unexplained loss of an Air France A330 over the Atlantic in June.
Flightglobal recently reported that during its Crew Management Conference in early December that experts are debating whether a seeming deterioration of pilot skills is the symptom of long term effects of operating highly automated aircraft.
Babbitt says the impact of increased automation could also affect air traffic controllers and maintenance workers. "I've asked FAA's human factors experts to look at it," he says. "We have to make sure a human is the ultimate decision maker."
A key goal of the upcoming meeting, he notes, is to get carriers to share what they've learned on the topic. "If a carrier has developed a good procedure, I want to tell others about it," says Babbitt.
By John Croft
US FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt says he will bring together airlines and human factors experts in April or possibly sooner to discuss the consequences of advanced automation as it applies to pilots, controllers and mechanics.
The basic question that will be addressed at the meeting, says Babbitt, is: "Have we automated to the point where the human is out of the loop?" The FAA chief was speaking to ATI and Flightglobal in Houston on 12 January after a kick-off event for initial operations of the FAA's automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast services (ADS-B) in the Gulf of Mexico.
Babbitt, a former airline pilot and instructor who continues to fly light aircraft on occasion after becoming FAA Administrator in June 2009, says he initiated the effort in part after hearing from "several airlines" that they were changing operational procedures to call for "a little more hand flying".
Pilots typically engage an aircraft's autopilot shortly after takeoff, returning to hand-flying mode shortly before landing. FAA rules require that all aircraft flying above 29,000ft (8,845m) in reduced vertical separation minima (RVSM) airspace be operated on autopilot for safety reasons due to the limited vertical separation between aircraft, but carriers have more leeway at lower altitudes.
Autopilot use is largely determined by efficiency measures in those areas, a reality that would tend to signal increased automation and autopilot use as the FAA moves toward 4d navigation, where an aircraft must pass certain waypoints at a relatively precise time.
The role of automation and training has been in the safety spotlight after several recent high profile accidents in 2009, including the stall-related crash of a Colgan Airways Q400 in Buffalo in February, the crash of a FedEx MD-11F during an otherwise normal landing at Tokyo Narita in March and the unexplained loss of an Air France A330 over the Atlantic in June.
Flightglobal recently reported that during its Crew Management Conference in early December that experts are debating whether a seeming deterioration of pilot skills is the symptom of long term effects of operating highly automated aircraft.
Babbitt says the impact of increased automation could also affect air traffic controllers and maintenance workers. "I've asked FAA's human factors experts to look at it," he says. "We have to make sure a human is the ultimate decision maker."
A key goal of the upcoming meeting, he notes, is to get carriers to share what they've learned on the topic. "If a carrier has developed a good procedure, I want to tell others about it," says Babbitt.
AA09: Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
By Andrew Doyle
Airbus is urging the aviation industry to confront the issue of how to ensure long-haul airline pilots maintain basic flying skills in the face of ever-increasing aircraft reliability and cockpit automation.
"We need to refocus on basic handling," Capt Jacques Drappier, Airbus vice-president training, told the APATS training conference at the show yesterday during a presentation on the manufacturer's training philosophy for its latest widebody programme, the A350 XWB.
"I think that at a certain point in time we need to bring back a little bit of handling," said Drappier, adding that he advocates more simulator time for pilots to hone their basic skills. Meanwhile, he says, there are some elements of training that could be moved from the simulator to the classroom.
According to Drappier, long-haul pilots typically log 800-900 flying hours a year, although this could include "less than 3h of stick time", the majority of which is accumulated on final approach and flare.
"We put people into our training today who have forgotten how to fly, basically," he says. "This is an issue that needs to be addressed by the industry."
Pilot training for the A350 will be broadly similar to that for the A380, despite the technical advances being incorporated into the new twinjet, according to Drappier.
"It's all new technology, but it's new technology in the structure, engines and systems. Most of it is transparent to the pilots. The training experience from the A380 is fully applicable."
Airbus expects pilot type conversion training to take five days between the A380 and the A350, compared with 10 days from the A330/A340 family to the A350 and 11 days from the A320.
By Andrew Doyle
Airbus is urging the aviation industry to confront the issue of how to ensure long-haul airline pilots maintain basic flying skills in the face of ever-increasing aircraft reliability and cockpit automation.
"We need to refocus on basic handling," Capt Jacques Drappier, Airbus vice-president training, told the APATS training conference at the show yesterday during a presentation on the manufacturer's training philosophy for its latest widebody programme, the A350 XWB.
"I think that at a certain point in time we need to bring back a little bit of handling," said Drappier, adding that he advocates more simulator time for pilots to hone their basic skills. Meanwhile, he says, there are some elements of training that could be moved from the simulator to the classroom.
According to Drappier, long-haul pilots typically log 800-900 flying hours a year, although this could include "less than 3h of stick time", the majority of which is accumulated on final approach and flare.
"We put people into our training today who have forgotten how to fly, basically," he says. "This is an issue that needs to be addressed by the industry."
Pilot training for the A350 will be broadly similar to that for the A380, despite the technical advances being incorporated into the new twinjet, according to Drappier.
"It's all new technology, but it's new technology in the structure, engines and systems. Most of it is transparent to the pilots. The training experience from the A380 is fully applicable."
Airbus expects pilot type conversion training to take five days between the A380 and the A350, compared with 10 days from the A330/A340 family to the A350 and 11 days from the A320.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...ys-airbus.html
Last edited by John Citizen; 22nd Feb 2010 at 10:36.
